Collective memory and oral history interviews

Sarah McNicol

November 2012

1|Page

Collective memory and oral history interviews

Abstract
Although strong connections have been established between collective memory and oral history, the implications of collective memory for the practical conduct of oral history has not been fully considered and the vast majority of interviews are still conducted as individual one-to-one interviews. This exploratory study suggests that group oral history interviews may have a number of advantages, allowing details to be corroborated, challenged or supplemented, as well as differences in interpretation and understanding of the past to be explored. Further work is needed in order to better understand the full benefits and challenges of conducting oral history interviews with groups.

Introduction
The origin of term collective memory is usually attributed to Maurice Halbwachs, who published the landmark study on The Social Frameworks of Memory in 1925.1 Halbwachs argued that studying memory is not a matter of reflecting on the properties of the individual mind; rather, memory is constructed as a result of how minds work together, in a society: It is in society that people normally acquire their memories. It is also in society that they recall, recognize, and localize their memories.2 His work helped to shift debates about the nature of collective memory from a biological perspective to a cultural one. Halbwachs argued that it is impossible for individuals to remember in any coherent and enduring way outside of social group contexts. These groups, which provide a living link to collective memory, can include family, neighbourhood, profession, association, religion and nation. Halbwachs acknowledged that individuals will belong to many such social groups, and a collective memory is associated with each of them, as group membership provides the materials for memory and prompts the individual into recalling particular events. This suggests that conducting an oral history interview in a group situation could have significant implications for the memories which result. Building on Halbwachs work, Jan Assmann describes one aspect of collective memory, communicative memory, which he claims constitutes the field of oral history.3 In this form of everyday communication, contributors can change roles, alternating between relating a memory or experience, and listening. This form of communication is socially mediated and involves a group of people who share a common image of their past. Despite the strong connections between collective memory and oral history which have been established for a number of years, the implications of collective memory in the conduct of oral history have not been fully explored. While oral historians have engaged with some aspects of collective memory, for example, in the development of public history projects; community-based work; and Elizabeth Tonkins work on the social construction of oral history,4 the potential of collective memory to influence the fundamental way in which oral history interviews are conducted has rarely been considered. The overwhelming

2|Page

majority of oral history interviews take place with individual interviewees. Indeed, many practical guides for those involved in oral history projects strongly recommend conducting one-to-one interviews.5 Furthermore, a distinction is frequently made between the oral tradition, which is community-based and oral history in which personal stories are collected from an individual.6 The purpose of this article is to consider the unique characteristics of group interviews and the ways in which these might be able to work towards the construction of collective memories by making use of the potential of social groups.

Methodology
In order to investigate the occurrence of collective memory within oral history interviews, a sample of verbatim transcripts was selected from a variety of projects and locations. For this small, exploratory study, accessible transcripts on everyday topics were identified via catalogues and online searches. All the interviews identified comprise two or more participants involved in a dialogue throughout the interview; although there may be times when one interviewee has more of a central role, they normally speak in turn. Transcripts where interviewees in a group were interviewed consecutively, without interjection from other members of the group, were not included as these are, essentially, a series of individual interviews. In total, nine transcripts were analysed: seven with married couples, one with a family group (mother, son and brother), and one with a group (one couple and two other individuals). Most of the interviews took a general life history format and covered a range of topics, including school, entertainment, workplaces, shopping and housing, to name but a few. These transcripts were located in physical and online archives, or had been conducted by the author. The construction of memory throughout interviews was analysed, with particular attention being paid to the interaction between participants to attempt to identify the ways in which memories are shaped by the presence of the group. The main themes which emerged are discussed below.

The demonstration of collective memory in oral history interviews

As Halbwachs states, we call on witnesses to corroborate, invalidate or supplement what we know about events.7 It is these, more straightforward, features of group oral history interviews which are discussed first, before moving on to consider some more complex aspects of social interaction and collective memory processes.

Reinforcement and corroboration

One of the obvious benefits of conducting an interview with more than one respondent is that interviewees will be able to corroborate the information given by others. In the transcripts studied, interviewees often simply repeat what one and another has said to indicate that they are in agreement. Halbwachs describes such instances as, those situations where we are but an echo.8 Interviewer: You said the Lord Mayors boots earlier.

3|Page

Interviewee 1: Oh that was in the Lord Mayors fund. Interviewee 2: Oh that was the Lord Mayors fund. Interviewee 1: I mean they still carry on every year now, dont they? The Lord Mayors Christmas fund.9

Sometimes, one interviewee could ask another to corroborate information they had given, either because they were unsure, or to provide additional evidence for the interviewer, such as a date, name or location: Mrs Heywood: Lovely area that for shops. Mr Heywood: Near the railway wasnt it? Mrs Heywood: Well, there was a railway ran over it. Mr Heywood: Thats right.10 Even when interviewees did not have an experience which was shared directly, they could still have shared memories, and corroborate each others testimony, because their experiences had been so similar: Polly Brown: Any chance you got reallywe werent supposed to read in bed at night, we were supposed to go to sleep, but I had this battery lantern thing which you could take under the covers. Mike Brown: Exactly the same with me. You read by torchlight under the blankets secretly.11 At other times, one interviewee reiterated what another had said, but in a slightly different way, adding further information. In this example, Mr Cotton mentions the time he would start work, prompting his wife to confirm this detail and talk about what this meant from her perspective: George Cotton: 4.30 I'd start. Shirley Cotton: 4.30, he would collect the milk and do some deliveries, then pick me up at half 5.12

Gap filling or supplementary information

While reinforcement is useful, both for the interviewees and the interviewer to help confirm memories are accurate, one of the most valuable features of group interviews is their potential to offer supplementary information as the group members fill gaps in each others recollections. On numerous occasions, interviewees could be seen to work together to provide more detail than one would be able to recall alone. Often one interviewee makes a statement, which the other then repeats, before adding further information:

4|Page

Mildred Brown: But, er, they often say how they [their children] enjoyed what they did, you know. And we didn't do anything, really, you know. Thomas Brown: And Parricelli's every night. Mildred Brown: Oh, hot chocolate in Parricelli's in Conway, in the Square, and er, hot chocolate for a shilling, shilling a cup. [Laughs] Can't believe it, can you?13 In other cases, one interviewee might admit they could not remember particular details, and another helped to fill in the gaps in their knowledge: Mr Richardson: I cant give you prices of stuff. Mrs Richardson: Well, a loaf was 2 d, I know that.14 A common example was giving explanations of terms which may not be familiar to the interviewer, for example, the function of a scullery, or explaining the interviewers question to another interviewee by using terms which were more familiar to them: Ray Lawson: In what way do you mean, selling? Mr ONeil: Hawking.15 There are also examples of interviewees, especially married couples, finishing each others sentences when one cannot recall specific details: Thomas Brown: I went to a place where they had a chap named ???? who did, erm - I've forgotten what they are now. Mildred Brown: Translations.16 On such occasions, the incident, or information, was shared by both interviewees and they worked together to overcome temporary lapses in each others memories. Another common occurrence, especially among couples, was for one interviewee to start a story, which the other then took up. Interviewer: Did you have a formal interview or form to fill in to show Mrs Heywood: No, a man came, a man came to view the house where we was. Mrs Heywood: He wanted to know why we wanted to leave the house like.17 The joint telling of a story was a common feature of group interviews, with each interviewee giving a slightly different perspective as in this example, where a couple together tell the story of how their transport arrangements changed over time. The husband focuses on his individual memory of how he travelled to work, while his wife provides support, adds further details and relates the story to the broader issue of their household budget: Thomas Brown: I used to walk all the way over to Clayton every day.

5|Page

Mildred Brown: Yeah. Either cycling, you started cycling at one time, didn't you? To work. Thomas Brown: I cycled all the way there and back. Mildred Brown: Yeah. Thomas Brown: Till I got a car. Mildred Brown: To save bus fare. Thomas Brown: I was forty-odd when I first got a car.18 It was common for interviewees to take on slightly different roles, reflecting their interests and specialised understanding of a situation. For example, in the interview with Fred and Edna Tanner, Mr Tanner tends to provide more general background information about slum life, but his wife is able to add personal details from her own experiences: Fred Tanner: Now lots of dockers and shipworkers lived round that part of, near the centre, where I said there, Cabot Street and all round there. All these hovels they lived in, more or less, and they lived down St Philips and Edna Tanner: Courts, in courts and squares, you know, the houses all round and a square in the middle with a tap.19 Sometimes, the dialogue was less evenly divided and one interviewee took the lead, while others interjected with small details to support their story and prompted them to provide further information, such as in this description of hiking and other recreational activities: Ray Lawson: Youd go in a group, yeah, and there was groups organised for different, various, what you call hikes, you know. That became quite a craze that, thats when that song came out, The Happy WandererThat was in the 30s. Early 30s, Id say Agnes ONeil: And then you could get a tram to Edely Warburton Saracens Head. Ray Lawson: Yeah, well you used to go to a point and walk from such a point to another. Saracens Head was the rowing, they had a bit of a lake there. Agnes ONeil: A lake, and boards, dance boards. Ray Lawson: Theres another thing, we bought our own tent, when the hiking was on there was also a hell of a lot of camping. Nearly all used to have their own camping equipment and youd go somewhere20

Generalisations
In addition to simply filling gaps in individual memories, group interviews can give an indication of how common an event or detail was throughout a community in the past. In a group situation, the work of

6|Page

interviewees can be divided in a number of ways. In the transcripts studied, often, one interviewee, most usually the wife if the interview was with a married couple, adopted the role of providing detailed personal information, while the other, frequently the husband, offered more general comments. This might occur even for topics where interviewees did not have direct shared memories, for example specific childhood memories. In this case, interviewees often start off take turns, giving examples from their own experiences, but this often leads to more generalised comments about what was a common behaviour or aoccurance at the time: Mrs Richardson: The school my dad went to was in an old mission. It could have been in a small church. Mr Richardson: Yes possibly. They used to have courtyards and often the room above was used as a mission where people used to buy coal.21 On occasions, one interviewee would interject in anothers testimony to provide background information to help the interviewer to better understand the situation being described, for example, in the following conversation about ways to minimise the pain of being caned: Ray Lawson: O rub rosin on your hands, yah. Agnes ONeil: Where did we get it from? Ray Lawson: From the docks. Agnes ONeil: A piece of rosin, it was like celluloid paper, but it was paper. If you were going to get the cane, this rosin went round the class. Youd rub it on your hands and you didnt feel it if you had the rosin on, did you?22

Prompting
As Halbwachs states, a great many of our remembrances reappear because other persons recall them to us.23 As the above examples illustrate, in a group interview situation, interviewees themselves can often be seen to take on the role more usually associated with the interviewer, prompting each other to provide further detail and additional information. In many situations, fellow interviewees have a distinct advantage over the interviewer in this respect as they have a more immediate understanding of the event being related, and a swifter appreciation of where there may be missing details or gaps to be filled. On many occasions, one interviewee would introduce a topic, and allow another to give more in-depth information. It is clear that the interviewee who introduces the topic is aware that the other participant knows about this and will be able to provide the interviewer with more detailed information. Edna Tanner: Yeah, that was up at St Peters Church [] Near Castle Street. Fred Tanner: Yes, and what was the ladys name? Edna Tanner: Mrs Dalbenny was the lady, I remember her very, very plain.24

7|Page

Frequently, it is clear that an interviewee has heard the story being related before and knows what the other is going to say: George Cotton: You know, a Salfordian is Shirley Cotton: ... a Salfordian forever, George, I would say.25 At other times, however, an interviewee would question another about something they appear not to have heard about previously, or are unsure they can remember: Thomas Brown: I can remember exactly when I asked you to come out with me. Mildred Brown: Go on! Thomas Brown: It was at the corner of High Street, and, er ... High Street, yes, near that ... Toffee shop. Before you got to the railway.26 At other points, interviewees may prompt each other unintentionally; the mention of a particular word by one interviewee rouses memories in another of something not obviously related to the previous discussion. Frequently, the mention of a word or a description which sparks an unintended recollection as in the example below: Thomas Brown: There was a locomotive works on the other side of the railway - the Tank, Gorton Tank. Have you heard about that, Gorton Tank? So you used to have to go past that. Mildred Brown: And it was the main London to Manchester line that, er, ran along there. Gorton Station. Thomas Brown: The King and Queen came by once and they painted all the coal on the sidings white. Mildred Brown: They did! [Laughs]27 When a new avenue of discussion is opened up in this way, it is sometimes taken up by the original speaker, but it is often ignored as they continue their previous recollections. This leads to occasions in the transcripts where interviewees are telling, essentially separate stories, concurrently: Interviewee 1: Thats where the school was. I was the last pupil to go to St Nicholas. Interviewee 2: Yeah, it was bombed. Interviewee 1: Yeah, very last one.28 In a group interview, one interviewee may often prompt another to recall memories from a past which they had not shared. Halbwachs claimed that, Our memories remain collective [however] and are recalled to us through others even through even we were participants in the events or saw the things concerned.29 In this type of interaction, an interviewee may have heard the other participant speak about a matter before, or may simply ask whether they have similar memories to themselves.

8|Page

Challenging testimonies
Although this is a less common occurrence in the transcripts, rather than interviewees corroborating each others memories, the participants did sometimes disputed each others recollections. For example, they would correct details in another interviewees testimony, or point out an anomaly in a general statement the other had made. This is an important feature of group interviewees, as without another member of a particular social group present in the interview, the original assertion would likely have gone unchallenged. The way in which interviewees challenge each other is affected by the dynamics of the group being interviewed and is more noticeable in some interviews than others. In the interview with Mr and Mrs Howard, there are several examples of one thinking they can remember something, but the other correcting them and adding more detail to explain why they are sure their version is the correct one: Mrs Howard: Dole money, but after youd been out of work. Mr Howard: Yes, but only got it for so many weeks, about 13 weeks. Mrs Howard: Six months. Mr Howard: Thirteen weeks. Cos the only time in my life Ive ever been on the dole, I was on for 3 weeks30 A common pattern seen in the transcripts was for interviewees to discuss, and agree on, a point, then one to take on the task of expanding the description for the interviewer, such as in this discussion of part of an interviewees working life: Mildred Brown: So I must have been there about - I left Peacock's in '42, er - so I must have been there in, for three years at Crossley's, I think. Thomas Brown: Oh, you'd left Peacock's before '42, love.

Mildred Brown: '41, sorry. '41, I left Peacock's, yeah. And I went to Crossley's and did the same type of work, except it was for Crossley engines for fitting, er, mine sweepers and things like that, you know. 31
There are also examples of interviewees working together to determine a specific piece of information, such as a name or date, which neither was completely confident about. Interviewee 2: 1943? Interviewee 1: 1940 it was bombed, wasnt it? On the blitz, the first blitz. Interviewee 2: No, it was, no cause I went about 1943. Interviewee 1: Oh well you might be right, all right.32 On some occasions, however, interviewees simply failed to agree on details:

9|Page

Agnes ONeil: The crumpet man. Hoky Poky man Mr ONeil: It was called Hoky Coky Agnes ONeil: Hoky Poky.33

Difference in interpretation of events

Halbwachs argues that each memory is a viewpoint on the collective memory. The interview transcripts studied illustrate that, even when interviewees agree on the basic facts being presented, they can interpret, or react to, situations very differently. The same events also clearly have differing emotional effects on interviewees. As Halsbawn states, individual members [still] vary in the intensity with which they experience them [remembrances].34 In this extract from the interview with Fred and Edna Tanner, it is clear that Mr Tanner is more detached than his wife whose experiences mean her memories of the events elicited much stronger emotions: Edna Tanner: She was a very strict, awful woman. Awful woman. Fred Tanner: Her job was to, after all she had to safeguard the citizens money and at the, at the same time, she had to issue money to deserving cases. So it was Edna Tanner: Yes, but how deserving did you have to be? Fred Tanner: I dont know? Edna Tanner: When they would, to make you sell up every stick and stone you had, barring the bed you had, or the tables or chairs. Fred Tanner: Yeah, I was nearly, I was always quite well off, as, as the Edna Tanner: Yeah well I know it only too well.35 In other cases, interviewees disagreed, not only about their personal experience, but about the way in which issues were viewed by society in general in the past, such as in the following example about attitudes towards police officers: Interviewer: And what about the police, were the policed accepted within the area? Agnes ONeil: Oh yes. Irene Hickson: They were part of the community in them days. Ray Lawson: I wouldnt say they were respected by the community.36

10 | P a g e

Reaching an understanding of the shared past

Although this level of debate did not feature frequently, there are occasional examples of interviewees discussing aspects of the past among themselves in order to better understand why something happened in the way in which they remembered. In the following example, a couple try to understand why they had started going out together despite initial challenges: Thomas Brown: But I wanted to, I wanted to see her the first time I saw her. But, of course, I was only a kid, remember, and she was grown-up then. I thought no chance! But, er, it worked out. I don't know how, but it did. Mildred Brown: But it was, er, because we both worked in the same building, you'd go in on the Monday morning and, er, somebody would say, "Oh, I saw you two last night", you see, and that got on my nerves a bit, you see, so I thought, "I'm looking for another job!" So I went to work at, applied for a job at Crossley Brothers, in Pottery Lane, and I went there, after five years.37

Discussion
Crane has described how lived experience and collective memory interpenetrate each other38 and this could be seen in many of the transcripts studied as interviewees maintained living contact with the past through revealing their memories within the group. In summary, group oral history interviews offer opportunities for interviewees to corroborate each others testimony; fill gaps in their individual memories; and dispute the claims each makes. Furthermore, this type of interview can highlight differences in interpretations and emotional reactions, and help to produce a shared understanding of the past. In a sense, group oral history interviews can overcome the problem described by Crane, that groups have no single brain in which to locate the memory function.39 The oral history recording, and subsequent transcription, provides a site, albeit an inflexible and incomplete one, in which collective memories can be stored. It is interesting to note that, in the transcripts studied, there were many examples of interviewees having a shared group or community memory of the past, even if they did not directly share the same experience. However, whilst group oral history interviews can offer a number of advantages, they also present challenges for the historian. As Halbwachs points out, as well as providing the materials for memory and stimulating the individual into recalling particular events, groups can prompt individuals to forget certain memories, and can even produce memories in individuals of events that they never experienced in any direct sense.40 Another danger, and one which is true of group interviews in general, is that individuals may go along with the majority view and refrain from expressing their own opinion. As Crane suggests, there are as many memories as there are groups within which to remember.41 This means that the memories an individual relates in one group will differ from the memories they might recall were they to be interviewed as part of a different social group. The oral historian needs to be aware of the context and dynamics of the group they are interviewing and consider how this unique composition not only stimulates memories which would not have been revealed in a different situation, but also inhibits memories which might surface within another group.

11 | P a g e

Neither are group interviews without risks for interviewees. For example, a potentially confusing and distressing result of the group interview may be that interviewees describe an event which happened to a member of the group of which the individual concerned has no memory. In contrast to the interviewing of individuals, there is little guidance available in the conduct of group oral history interviews. Halbwachs discusses the need for an affective community with enough points of contact so that any remembrance they recall [to us] can be constructed on a common foundation.42 This suggests that group oral history interviews may be best conducted with groups who have maintained contact with each other and whose memories are continually passed back and forth, for example, a married couple or group who have remained close friends. Although only two of the interviews analysed did not involve a married couple, the examples selected for this study would suggest that interviews with friendship and wider family groups provide greater opportunity for debate and the active construction of memory within the interview than the interviews with couples who, for the most part, have already established a story which they are retelling to the interviewer.

This small, exploratory study highlights the need for further work to investigate the potential of group oral history interviewees. At present, there are very few examples of such interviews available, especially those involving friendship or larger family groups. In the majority of projects, the individual oral history interview is conducted as a default, often with little consideration of any alternative formats available. While many topics and projects are, indeed, best served by individual one-to-one interviews, it should be acknowledged that, in other cases, group interviews may be the most appropriate form of collecting memories as they offer an opportunity to present a different, and more community-orientated, view of the past. Interviewers need to give careful consideration to the possible advantages, and disadvantages, of group interviews before deciding which option: individuals, couple, larger groups, or a mixture of these, is likely to best match the needs of their project.

Conclusion
As Halbwachs argued, Dont we believe we believe that we relive the past more fully because we no longer represent it alone, because we see it now as we saw it then, through the eyes of another as well?.43 Group oral history interviews may, in certain circumstances, lead to a fuller, and more developed, portrait of the past than individual interviews. As well as benefits for the historian, they can be beneficial for the interviewees, for whom the interview becomes a more enjoyable and fulfilling experience than it might have been otherwise. The potential of group interviews is, at present, woefully underexploited. Only with further work in this area will the full benefits and challenges of this method be better understood.
1

Maurice Halbwachs, The Social Frameworks of Memory, Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press, 1992 [First published 1925]. 2 Halbwachs, 1992, p 38. 3 Jan Assmann, Collective memory and cultural identity, New German Critique, no 65 (Spring - Summer), pp 126. 4 Elizabeth Tonkin, Narrating our Pasts: The Social Construction of Oral History, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. 5 For example, Donald H Ritchie, Doing Oral History: A Practical Guide, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.

12 | P a g e

Sharlene Nagy Hesse-Biber, and Patricia Leavy, The Practice of Qualitative Research (2 ed), London: Sage Publications Ltd, 2011, pp 149-50. 7 Halbwachs, 1992, p22. 8 Halbwachs, 1992, p45. 9 Interview with Prince Street Families, interviewed by A.C.H. Smith (with Andy Hay), Bristol Floating Harbour [web page]. Accessed online at http://www.bristolfloatingharbour.org.uk/oral-history/oral-historytranscripts/, 9 July 2012. 10 Interview with Mr and Mrs Heywood, Wythenshawe interview, Manchester Studies 51, catalogue reference GB131.1103/51, transcript p10. 11 Interview with Mike and Polly Brown, recorded by Author, 1 May 2005. 12 Interview with George and Shirley Cotton, Museum of Science and Industry (OH250) [web page]. Accessed online at http://www.mosi.org.uk/collections/explore-the-collections/oral-historiesonline/story.aspx?person=5509, 9 July 2012. 13 Interview with Thomas and Mildred Brown, Museum of Science and Industry (OH259) [web page]. Accessed online at http://www.mosi.org.uk/collections/explore-the-collections/oral-historiesonline/story.aspx?person=5574&story=5579, 9 July 2012. 14 Interview with Mr and Mrs Richardson, Ordsall interview, Manchester Studies 501, catalogue reference GB131.1103/501, transcript p5. 15 Interview with Ray Lawson, Agnes ONeil, Mr ONeil and Irene Hickson, Ordsall interview, Manchester Studies 517, transcript p 9. 16 Interview with Thomas and Mildred Brown, Museum of Science and Industry (OH259). 17 Interview with Mr and Mrs Heywood, Wythenshawe interview, Manchester Studies 51, p11. 18 Interview with Thomas and Mildred Brown, Museum of Science and Industry (OH259). 19 Interview with Fred and Edna Tanner, interviewed by A.C.H. Smith (with Andy Hay), Bristol Floating Harbour [web page]. Accessed online at http://www.bristolfloatingharbour.org.uk/oral-history/oral-historytranscripts/, 9 July 2012. 20 Interview with Ray Lawson, Agnes ONeil, Mr ONeil and Irene Hickson, Ordsall interview, Manchester Studies 517, catalogue reference GB131.1103/517, transcript p29. 21 Interview with Mr and Mrs Richardson, Ordsall interview, Manchester Studies 501, transcript p4. 22 Interview with Ray Lawson, Agnes ONeil, Mr ONeil and Irene Hickson, Ordsall interview, Manchester Studies 517, transcript p 16. 23 Halbwachs, 1992, p33. 24 Interview with Fred and Edna Tanner, Bristol Floating Harbour. 25 Interview with George and Shirley Cotton, Museum of Science and Industry (OH250) 26 Interview with Thomas and Mildred Brown, Museum of Science and Industry (OH259). 27 Interview with Thomas and Mildred Brown, Museum of Science and Industry (OH259). 28 Interview with Prince Street Families, Bristol Floating Harbour. 29 Halbwachs, 1992, p23. 30 Interview with Mr and Mrs Howard, cotton industry interview, Manchester Studies 664, catalogue reference GB131.1103/664, transcript p13. 31 Interview with Thomas and Mildred Brown, Museum of Science and Industry (OH259). 32 Interview with Prince Street Families, Bristol Floating Harbour. 33 Interview with Ray Lawson, Agnes ONeil, Mr ONeil and Irene Hickson, Ordsall interview, Manchester Studies 517, transcript p 10. 34 Halbwachs, 1992, p 48. 35 Interview with Fred and Edna Tanner, Bristol Floating Harbour. 36 Interview with Ray Lawson, Agnes ONeil, Mr ONeil and Irene Hickson, Ordsall interview, Manchester Studies 517, transcript p 10. 37 Interview with Thomas and Mildred Brown, Museum of Science and Industry (OH259). 38 Susan A Crane, Writing the individual back into collective memory, American Historical Review, vol 102, no 4, 1997, p 1377. 39 Crane, 1997, p 1381. 40 Halbwachs, 1992. 41 Crane, 1997, p 1377. 42 Halbwachs, 1992, p 31.

nd

13 | P a g e

43

Halbwachs, 1992, p 23.

14 | P a g e