Social Thought & Commentary: The Abuses of Memory: Reflections on the Memory Boom in

Anthropology
Author(s): David Berliner
Source: Anthropological Quarterly, Vol. 78, No. 1 (Winter, 2005), pp. 197-211
Published by: The George Washington University Institute for Ethnographic Research
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4150896
Accessed: 06-08-2015 18:35 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The George Washington University Institute for Ethnographic Research is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to Anthropological Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 143.107.8.99 on Thu, 06 Aug 2015 18:35:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SOCIAL
THOUGHT
& COMMENTARY
The
Abuses
Reflections
in

of
on

Memory:
the
Memory

Boom

Anthropology'

David Berliner

HarvardUniversity

n recent years, studies of memory have blossomed in the humanities.

(Klein2000, Radstone2000, Zelizer 1995)2 In anthropology in particular,a
vast number of scholars are currentlyoccupied with researchabout memory.
(Candau1998, Climoand Cattell2002, Olickand Robbins1998) The list of contributions in this recent field of research is too voluminous to even begin to
report. In every new anthropological publication, there is another article
about social, cultural or material memory. Anthropology of Memory has
become a respected course of many Americanand EuropeanUniversityprograms, something that would have been unthinkable 20 years ago. Also, conferences and workshopsare being organized with a special focus on memory
issues, something that would also have been unthinkable20 years ago.3
However,they are many unsettled areas in the field of memory studies.
Historianshave indeed begun warning us against the "terminologicalprofusion"and the "semanticoverload"of the notion (Kansteiner2002, Klein2000).
Gillisobserves that "memory seems to be losing precise meaning in proportion to its growing rhetorical power"(Gillis1984: 3). As historian Jay Winter
cogently writes,
197
This content downloaded from 143.107.8.99 on Thu, 06 Aug 2015 18:35:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

TheAbusesof Memory:
Reflections
on the MemoryBoomin Anthropology

"Theonlyfixedpointis the nearubiquityof the term[memory].Justas

we use wordslike love and hate withoutever knowingtheir full or
sharedsignificance,so are we boundto go on usingthe term"memo2000:13).
ry,"the historicalsignatureof ourgeneration"(Winter
Fromthe ideathat"asocietyor a culturecan rememberand forget"(Arenot
to the widely used notion of
only individualscapableof remembering?)4
and the questionablevalidityof the notionof memory
"vicariousmemory"5'
in approaching
certaintrans-cultural
contexts,6a broadrangeof fundamental
epistemologicalissuesare stillto be raisedwithregardto memory.
The point that I would like to emphasizehere concernsthe "dangerof
overextension"
of the concept.Aconceptlosingprecisemeaning,memorycan
also be approachedas an expansivenotion. ForGediand Elam,"'collective
memory'has becomethe all-pervading
conceptwhichin effectstandsforall
sortsof humancognitiveproductsgenerally"(Gedi& Elam1996:40). In particular,historianshave alreadyunderscoredthe risksof entanglementof
too,
memoryand identity(Gillis1994, Megill1998).Some anthropologists,
startedexpressingconcernsabout the "dangersof overextensionthat are
inherentin the currentboomof memory"(Fabian1999:51). ForFabian,the
fromeither identityor
"conceptof memorymay becomeindistinguishable
culture"(ibid:51).JonathanBoyarinconcurs,notingthat"identityand memoryarevirtuallythe same"(Boyarin1994:23). Inthisessay,I contendthatthe
currentusageof the notionby anthropologists
can be a sourceof confusion
as it tendsto encompassmanyfeaturesof the notionof cultureitself.I argue
that this processof conceptualextensionleadingto the entanglementof
memoryandculturemeritscarefulscrutinyas it tellsusa greatdealaboutthe
anthropological
project.Needlessto say,I will raisemanyquestionsandgive
veryfew answers.Thispieceshouldbe takenas an epistemological
challenge
ratherthana pessimisticreproach.

Memoryin Anthropology:a HistoricalPerspective

It is unfortunatethattherehas not beenyet a history,a genealogyof the conwhereasthe ongoingobsessionwithmemoceptof memoryin anthropology,
ry in the humanities has been abundantlydocumented. In a powerfularticle,
Klein reminds us that

198
This content downloaded from 143.107.8.99 on Thu, 06 Aug 2015 18:35:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

DAVIDBERLINER

"Memory
grewincrediblymarginal,and in 1964 TheDictionaryof the
Social Sciences claimed that the word verged on extinction [...] The
1968 Edition of the International Encyclopediaof the Social Sciences

declinedto define memoryat all, despitethe luxuryof stretchingits

contentsout for 7 volumes.By 1976 [...] RaymondWilliams'sclassic
study, Keywords, [...] ignored memory. [...] Little more than two

decades separate memory'svirtual disappearanceand triumphal

return"(Klein2000: 131).
Toexplainthistriumphalreturn,historianJayWinterhasshownthatthereare
"distinctivesourcesof the contemporaryobsessionwith memorythat arise
out of a multiplicityof social, cultural,medical,and economictrendsand
developmentsof an eclecticbut intersectingnature"(Winter2000: 1). Many
factors(historical,socialand societal)havebeen invokedto explainthe emergenceof the memoryconceptin the humanities:aboveall the Shoah(Lacapra
1998),but also the influenceof identitypoliticsin the U.S,the marketingof
the reassessmentof nationalidentitiesin Europe
memoryand retro-mania,
(Klein2000). FrenchanthropologistJoel Candaudescribesour present-day
to him,
obsessionwithmemoryunderthe term"mnemotropisme."
According
thismnemotropisme
is "aproblemin identitycausedbyourincapacityto master the anxietyof loss"(Candau1998:104,mytranslation).Invadedby"aprofuse productionof information,imagesandtraces"(ibid:105, mytranslation).
Candauargues,our societyis less capableof transmittingmemorythan others, and moreobsessedwith it. In the same vein, Baxterunderlines,in the
Businessof Memory,
that "fetishizingmemoryis manifestingitself in a sociewhatDavidShrenkcalled
ty wherewe aretryingto copewithinformation-glut
the 'datasmog"'(Baxter1999:vii).
Inthe academicworld,the memoryboomstartedrecentlyin history,principallyin culturalhistory.PierreNora(1989)andJanAssman(1995)are known
as the fathersof the memorycrazeamonghistorians.Inthe wakeof the "postmodernistturn"and the deconstructionof the meta-texts,studentsof the
humanitieshaveproduced"adevastatingcritiqueof the totalizingaspectsof
historicaldiscourse"
(Klein2000:128).Aconceptcloserto experiencein itsconrefersto the pastas it is livedbythe socialagents(Dosse
notations,"memory"
1999,Ricoeur2001).It is definedas morehumanand subjective,and the historian becomes interested less in the reliabilityof memory than in the memory work itself. A group of scholars "interestedin the issue of popular resistance,"(Jing1996: 16) and criticalof the oral historypracticein the early 1980s,
199
This content downloaded from 143.107.8.99 on Thu, 06 Aug 2015 18:35:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

TheAbusesof Memory:
Reflections
on the MemoryBoomin Anthropology

the PopularMemoryGroupalso playeda crucialrolein orientingthe attention

as muchas the
of scholarstowardsthe "natureand processesof remembering,
contentsof the memories[...]"(Thomson,Frischand Hamilton1994:34).
Itis temptingto understand
the successof memoryamonganthropologists
turnandthe ragingmemory/history
debate
in the lightof the postmodernist
in the humanities,as they bothaffectedourdiscipline.Recentanthropological studieshave indeedabandonedthe suspiciousattitudetowardmemory
that previouslycharacterized
manyhistories(likethose of Vansina(1980)for
approach,whichconsistsof capturing
example)for a morephenomenological
the way people perceive:they remember,forgetand reinterprettheir own
sharedand
pasts.Thisfocus on historyas it is lived,on the remembrances
transmittedby socialgroupshasshownthat peopleexperienceand interpret
of viewpoints.Sucha perspective,whichdocutheirpastsfroma multiplicity
ments the existenceof multipleand sometimesantagonisticvisionsof the
pastwithinthe same society,has been copiouslydevelopedin anthropological studiessince the 1980s.A bouquetof writingsspringsto mind,such as
those,amongmanyothers,of Appadurai
(1981),Bloch(1998),Boyarin(1991),
Cohn(1995),Cole(2001),Dakhlia(1990),Hastrup(1992),Herzfeld(1991),Jing
(2001),Rappaport
(1990),Rosaldo(1980),Stoler
(1996),Kilani(1992),Lapierre
some of these recent
and Strassler(2000)and Tonkin(1992).Furthermore,
workshave beguntreatingthe bodyas a "vitalsite of memory,"(Strathern
1996:29) suchas those colonialmemoriesexploredby Blochin Madagascar
(1998)and Stollerin Niger(1995).Anotherspate of writingson memoryand
its relationshipto places(Feldand Basso1996)and objects(Radley1990)is
also emergingthese days,emphasizingthe way both placesand objectscontributeto materializeindividualbiographyand sharedhistory.

The Overextensionof Memory:Memoryand Culture

use the notionof memoryto referto the social
Today,mostanthropologists
of precisehistorical
eventsandexperi(andsometimestraumatic)
remembering
it as an extremelysocialactivitybyvirtueof whichone
ences.Theyunderstand
But,formanyanthropoloregisters,retainsand revisitseventsandexperiences.
andBastideaswell,memoryisalso
Nora,Connerton
gists,readersof Halbwachs,
of somethingfromthe pastintothe presunderstood
roughlyasthe "persistence
ent"(Halbwachs1994 [1925],my translation)or, in other words,when "aparticular past perseveresbecause it remains relevantfor later culturalformations"
(Olick& Robbins1998:129).The label "memory"aims to graspthe pastwe carry,
200
This content downloaded from 143.107.8.99 on Thu, 06 Aug 2015 18:35:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

DAVIDBERLINER

howwe areshapedbyit andhowthispastis transmitted.

Therefore,
everylittle
traceof the "pastin the present"
is designatedas memory.Here,thereis neither
of
perceptionnorremembering.
Memoryis notseen as a set of representations
eventsandexperiences
thatareshared,butas the waylastingtracesof the past
persistwithin us, as the transmissionand persistenceof culturalelements
throughthe generations.Memoryis nottheseseriesof recalledmentalimages,
buta synonymforculturalstorageof the past:it is the reproduction
of the past
in the present,this accumulatedpastwhichacts on us and makesus act. As
PierreNoraputit, "Collective
memoryis whatremainsfromthe pastin groups'
life,orwhatgroupsdo withthe past"(Nora1972:398, mytranslation).
Forinstance,this is particularly
clearin the powerfulbookbyJunJingThe
wherethe authoremploytheword"memory"
to referto the
Temple
of Memories,
"meticulous
remembrance
of past eventsand persons"fromthe Communist
era(Jing1996:17)as wellas to describethe contemporary
politicalpersecution
of popularreligion"
"resurgence
(ibid:173)in the Chinesevillageof Dachuan.
Thenotionof memoryhelpsJing,insteadof mourningthe passingof traditionof hisobjectof study,thatisthe reproal society,to thinkthroughthe persistence
ductionof Kongsocietythroughtimedespitedramaticchangesin context:
"Thestoryof Dachuanand its Confucius
Temple,"he writes,[...] "isone
of proudand innovativepeopletryingto rebuildtheirlifeaftergrievous
assaultson theirculturalidentity,sense of history,and religiousfaith"
(ibid:22).
It is as if, afterhavingbeen uncertainabouthow practicescouldbe transmitted in such tormentedmodernworldswhere "savages"were supposedto
realizedthat the pastdoes not evaporate,but per"vanish,"
anthropologists
sistsin multipleways.Here,"collectivememory"refersto the memoryof the
society,its abilityto reproduceitselfthroughtime.
To the best of my knowledge,the contemporaryanthropologicaluse of
memoryis hoveringbetweenhistoryas it is livedby peopleand those issues
of culturalpersistence.As Battagliaput it, "the study of "socialmemory"
addressesproblemsin the "livinghistory"and ongoingculturaltraditionsof
collectivities
of persons"(Battaglia1992:14, my emphasis).Atthe same time
the term standsin for remembranceof past events and experiencesand a
"past"transmittedand stored (like in a computer,without meaning or
remembering).Indeed, by virtue of its semantic multidimensionality,memory is an expansive label that seems to migrate into different places. In fact, as
201
This content downloaded from 143.107.8.99 on Thu, 06 Aug 2015 18:35:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

TheAbusesof Memory:
Reflections
on the MemoryBoomin Anthropology

we trackthe usagesof the concept,it becomesclearthatwe canobservea diffusionof the problemof memoryintothe generalprocessof culture.
To suggestwhat I have in mind, let me offer one illuminatingexample
fromthe recentbookeditedbyClimoand Cattell,SocialMemory
and History:
Approaches.In her contributionto the volume,"Exploring
Anthropological
Venuesof SocialMemory,"
CaroleCrumleybeginsby askingtwo questions:
"Onelearnsculture,but how?Whichelementsand events of everydaylife
transmitvalues, beliefs, techniques,strategies?"(Climoand Cattell2002:
39).Shethen proposesa definitionof socialmemory:
"Socialmemory",she writes,"is the means by which informationis
transmittedamongindividualand groupsand fromone generationto
another.Not necessarilyawarethat they are doingso, individualspass
on theirbehaviorsandattitudesto othersin variouscontextsbutespeciallythroughemotionaland practicalties and in relationships
among
To
an
from
social
use
physics,
memoryacts
generations[...]
analogy
likea carrierwave,transmittinginformationovergenerationsregardless of the degreeto whichparticipantsare awareof theirrolesin the
process"(ibid:40).
social memorycorrespondsto those "communitypercepAccordingly,
tions, attitudes, behaviors,values and institutions"that "aretransmitted
text is that
acrossgenerations"(ibid:40). Thethingto note aboutCrumley's
its definitionof memoryis so broadthat it becomesincreasinglyimpossible
to discernthe boundariesof the notion.Indeed,what is not memorythen?
Besides,if memoryis howthe pastpersistsin and investsthe present,being
funceverythingandeverywhere,if it is definedas "thepattern-maintenance
tion of societyor as socialreproductionperse"(Olick& Robbins1998:112),
then isn'tmemorythe processof cultureitself?Isthat not whatthe concept
of cultureis all about?
But "howthese collectivememoriesdifferfrom anythingelse learned,"
asks cogentlyCrapanzano
(2004:156)?One mightindeedbe puzzledby the
similarityof Crumley'sdefinitionwith the initialdefinitionof cultureproand Kroeber:
posedin the fiftiesby Kluckhon
"Culture,"
they say, "consistsof patterns,explicit and implicit,of and for
behavior acquired and transmitted by symbols, [...] including their
embodiment in artifacts;the essential core of culture consists of tradi202
This content downloaded from 143.107.8.99 on Thu, 06 Aug 2015 18:35:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

DAVIDBERLINER

tional (i.e. historicallyderivedand selected)ideasand especiallytheir

attachedvalues;culturesystemsmay,on the one hand,be considered
as productsof action,on the other hand as conditioningelementsof
& Kluckholn1952:357).
furtheraction"(Kroeber
hereis that,bya dangerousactof expansion,memorygradually
Myimpression
becomeseverything
whichis transmitted
acrossgenerations,
everythingstored
thenfromthe conceptof cultureitself.7
in culture,"almostindistinguishable"

Continuity
As manytheoristshave pointedout, the memorycraze in historyand the
turn.Pierre
socialsciencescanbe seen as a consequenceof the postmodernist
Norahimselfobservesthat"thecollectivememoryis a recenthistoricalproblem"(Nora1972:400, mytranslation).However,there hasto be moreto the
To me, the
storyif one is to understandits successamonganthropologists.
memoryboom in anthropologyis not a surprise,nor is memoryonly an
inventionof the postmodernist
turn.Indeed,accordingto White,
"Toanthropologists,
the spate of recentwritingon collectivememory
may seem puzzlingfor its familiarity.Workin the area reinvents
approachesto cultureand identitycommonlypursuedin ethnographic
researchon narrative,ritualpractice,life histories,and so forth"(White
1996:495, myemphasis).
Withoutminimizingthe crucialimpactof the postmodernistturn since
the 1980s, I would like to suggestthat we can, and perhapsshould, also
understandthe successof memoryamong anthropologistsas an avatarof
of society.In
the never-endingdebateaboutthe continuityand reproduction
Ifindthatthe conceptualinterferencesbetweenmemoryand culparticular,
tureteach us a greatdeal aboutthe wayanthropologists
conceptualizesociety and culture.
Inanthropology,
twooft-ignored
authorscanbe seenas pioneersin the field
of memorystudies.Thenameof JackGoodyis associatedwiththe firststudies
of memory.Inspiredby researchabout bardicperformances,
Goodyshowed
that there is no idea of a fixed model text to serve as a ritualistguide. There is
no such a thing as verbatimmemory in the Bagremyth(Goody1972). Obviously,
Goodywas not interestedin "popularmemory,"but ratherin the exactitudeof
203
This content downloaded from 143.107.8.99 on Thu, 06 Aug 2015 18:35:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

on the MemoryBoomin Anthropology

TheAbusesof Memory:
Reflections

and memorization.
However,
byfocusingon the successivereperemembering
hisresearchdealtprecisely
withthe
titionsof one mythanditsmetamorphoses,
of culture.Also,we
processesand conditionsof learningand the transmission
shouldpaya specialattentionto the workof RogerBastidewho is usuallyforthe vestigesof Africanculturein Brazil,
gottenin memorystudies.8Analyzing
Bastide(1970)builthiswholeworkaroundthe conceptof collectivememoryto
describereligioussyncretisticphenomena,especiallythroughsensory-motor
of Africanritesin South-American
recollections
contexts.
Goodyand Bastidewereverymuchconcernedwithissuesof whathasbeen
calledthe presentist"malleability"
of the past,andthe "bricolage"
dimension
of our relationship
towardit. However,the initialemphasisin theirworks(as
in the worksof Halbwachs)
of society.
is on the continuanceand transmission
Howpracticesre-enact,modifyand conserve"pastness"
throughtime is the
mainanthropological
issuethattheyweredealingwith.Insofaras it isdefined
as a facultythat sustainscontinuity,the notionof memoryhelpedthem to
thinkthroughthose issuesof culturalconservationand socialcontinuity.For
Connerton,whose work (like Halbwachs')has been highly influentialin
anthropology,memoryis also an ideal entrypointto engagewith issuesof
culturalcontinuity:
"Whereassome dominantcontemporarytrends in social theory,"he
writes,"areoften criticizedon the groundthatthey do not address,or
addressinadequately,
the factof socialchange,I shallseekto highlight
the way in which such theoriesare often defectivebecausethey are
unableto treat adequatelythe fact of social persistence"(Connerton
1989:39-40).
is notthisfragIna revealingway,memory,as it is usedbyanthropologists,
ile and unreliablememorythatembarrassed
suspicioushistoriansin the past.
Todaymorethanever,memoryis on the side of continuity,permanenceand
"retention"(Crapanzano
2004). For anthropologists,there is nothingnew
about these ideas. Has anthropologynot alwaysbeen concernedwith the
retentionof the old, since initialevolutionistemphasison "survivals,"
these
vestigesof oldercustomsthat resistedevolution,to the theoriesof cultural
Is not the "anthropology
transmissionby Herskovits?
of knowledge"
developed by Barth(1990) another example of the same set of paradigmaticinterests with cultural reproduction?In these days when the Bourdieusianhabitus
dominates our intellectual environment,debates about the continuityof soci204
This content downloaded from 143.107.8.99 on Thu, 06 Aug 2015 18:35:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

DAVIDBERLINER

while new develety and of culturalpracticesare crucialto anthropologists,

opments in cognitiveanthropology(Bloch1998, Whitehouse2002) offer a
freshlookat issuesof culturaltransmissionand persistence.
Thisopensonto a fundamentalquestionas to what is actuallynew in our
currentfascinationwith memory.HistoriansGediand Elamsuggestedthat
"'collectivememory'[...] coversthe areas previouslydesignatedby 'myth"'
(Gediand Elam1996:41). In the same vein, for Klein,memoryis "replacing
old favorites"
suchas "nature,culture,language"(Klein2000:128).Following
this line, I wouldliketo suggestthat the successof memoryamonganthropologistsresidesalso in its conceptualefficiencyto prolongthe anthropological projectof understandingcontinuity.Alongwith the notion of culture,
withwhichit tendsto fusion,memoryhelpsus to thinkthroughthe continuity and persistenceof representations,
practices,emotions,and institutions,
an ideafundamentalto anthropologists
sincethe foundingof the discipline.
A last word remainsto be writtenabout forgetting.The suggestionI am
makingfor memory-that the triumphof memoryin our disciplinecould
also be understoodby referenceto issuesof culturalcontinuityand persistin anthropological
ence-may be extendedto the treatmentof "forgetting"
studies.Inthis essay,I did not considerthe conceptof forgettingthatanthropologistshaverecentlybroughtout to bettertackleissuesof identityconstruction (Aug61998, Battaglia1993, Carsten1995).However,just as anthropolowhat is at stakein
giststend to entanglememoryand culturalreproduction,
forgettingstudiesis the veryreproductionor persistenceof forgetting.Since
it is a socialprocess,forgettingis describedas "acrucialpartof the wayidenfor Battaglia,"for1995:318).Similarly,
tity is activelyacquired[...]"(Carsten
gettinggives riseto "society,"
(Battaglia1993:430) and, byvirtueof its "persistentnon-presence,"
(ibid:438, myemphasis),it servesto prolong"aunitary
perdurablesocialorder"(ibid:430).Althoughnaivelyheldin oppositionwith
memory,the anthropological
approachto forgettingseems to be motivated
concerns.Middletonand Edwards
are rather
bythe sameset of paradigmatic
of institutional
clearaboutit, by pointingout that in analyzingthe "practices
and forgetting,it is possibleto see howthe continuityof social
remembering
life, as preservedin certainformsof social practices,[...] dependson the
of those practices"
preservation
(Middeltonand Edwards1990:10). Tosome
degree,forgetting,alongwith memory,looksas if it is on the side of permanence and retention, and serves also, by its non-presence, to prolong the
anthropologicalprojectof understandingcontinuity.

205
This content downloaded from 143.107.8.99 on Thu, 06 Aug 2015 18:35:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

TheAbusesof Memory:
Reflections
on the MemoryBoomin Anthropology

Clarity
untilrecently,therewasa highlevelof consensuson
Amonganthropologists,
the conceptof memory.Thisessayattemptedto demonstratethatwe should
a problematic
butindispensable
be as criticalof "memory,"
conceptforthem,
or"identity."
as we havelearnedto be of "culture"
Itseemsto me thatthe conceptof memoryhas becomea scientificcommonsensein the anthropological
discourse,constantlyand unthinkingly
deployed.First,I arguedthat "memohasgraduallybecomea vague,fuzzylabel.
ry,"as it is usedbyanthropologists,
Indeed,some of the authorscurrentlyworkingon memory,startfromtoo
broada definition,and that, as a result,we no longersee clearlywhatthey
meanbythe term.Sucha lackof clarityis farfromexceptionalforanthropologicalconcepts,andthereis, of course,no needto advocatefora rejectionof
the term.Rather,I argued,it is timeto disentanglethe multipleandexpansive
meaningsof the notion,andto questionits popularityin ourdiscipline.
In particular,I haveshownthat one of these ambiguitiesis that the concept of memorytends to encompassthe notionof cultureand its reproduction. In myview,this emphasison memoryas "thepresenceof the past,"as
continuityand persistencealso explainswhyit hasbecomesucha trendyconskewedtowardthose issues.In this process
cept in ourdisciplinehistorically
of conceptualexpansion,some highly influentialscholarssuch as Nora,
Halbwachs,Terdimanand especiallyConnerton(who use the conceptin its
broadestsense) can also be held for responsible.It is worth noticingthat
slim volume is indeed often the only referenceprovidedby
"Connerton's
in theirdiscussionsof memory"(Sutton2001:10). Byarguing
anthropologists
that memoryis everythingor that everythingis memory(aswritesTerdiman)
andthat"societyis itselfa formof memory"(asConnertonputit),thesescholars plainlycontributedto diffusethe problemof memoryinto the general
in
processof culture,and to the renewedinterestamong anthropologists
"socialmemoryas culture."
the anthropological
usesof memorycan be a sourceof conConsequently,
uses of a termto denote such differentexperifusion.Suchindiscriminate
and we mustmake
ences and processesdo indeedbreedmisunderstanding,
distinctions(forinstance,betweenmemoryas recolnecessaryterminological
lectionandmemoryas culturalreproduction).
Aboveall, byoverextending
the
usageof this notion,aren'twe are losingthe specificityof whatanthropology
of memory is, i.e. to understand the way people remember and forget their
past?As the historianJayWinterput it candidly,

206
This content downloaded from 143.107.8.99 on Thu, 06 Aug 2015 18:35:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

DAVIDBERLINER

"Oneof the challenges of the next decade or so is to try to draw together some of these disparate strands of interest and enthusiasm through
a more rigorousand tightly argued set of propositionsabout what exactly memory is and what has been in the past. [...]" (Winter2000: 13).
In the same vein as Todorovwarning against the abuses of memory in the
political sphere, Ricoeur invited us to look for what he calls "une memoire
juste"(Ricoeur2001). I have argued in this essay, that in anthropologyas well,
it is time for a more matured use of this notion.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thispiece was writtenat HarvardUniversitywhile a recipientof a PostdoctoralFellowship

of the BelgianAmericanEducationalFoundation.I am very gratefulto MichaelHerzfeld,
RandyMatory,DebboraBattagliaand LaurenShwederfor their insightfulcommentson my
work.Forinspiringdiscussions,I want to thank RamonSarro.A shortenedversion of this
essay was deliveredat the 8th EuropeanAssociationof SocialAnthropologistsconference
held in Vienna, September2004. I wish to thank the convenors of the lively panel
"Anthropological
Approacheson Social Memory,"SharonMacDonald,HelenaJermanand
PetriHautaniemi.Finally,I was muchhelped bythe editorialcommentsof RichardGrinker,
MeliGlennand Jen HuiBon Hoa.

ENDNOTES

11borrowedthe title from the book Lesabus de la memoireby TvetzanTodorov(1995).In

this text, he denouncesthe exploitationof the notionof memoryin the contemporarypolitical sphere.
2Though ignoreduntil recently,Halbwachs'classics,LesCadressociauxde la memoire(1994
[1925])and Lamemoirecollective(1997[1950]),have now been re-discovered.Sincethe 80s,
anthropologistshave been readingthe colossalLesLieuxde la memoirepublishedby historianPierreNora(1989),while HowSocietiesRemember(1989)by Connerton,describedas "a
touchstonefor recentstudiesof memory,"(Sutton2001: 10) has become an anthropological must-read.
31 should mentionthat these reflectionshave arisenout of fieldworkconductedin GuineaConakry,WestAfrica.As memoryis a key-wordin the social sciences today, the attitude
towardthe past and its transmissionare a hot topic in Africansocietiesas well. Alongwith
memoryis at presenta globalizednotion,and the conceptis now largelyused by
"identity,"
Africanpoliticiansand localelites. I don't have time here to deepen this point, but we definitely live in a time when memoryis globalized,an historicalmomentthat Noratermed
convincinglythe moment-memoire.
in referenceto collectiveenti4Some scholarsuse dangerouslythe notionof "remembering"
ties. Forinstance,in the introductionof her TangledMemories,Sturkenasks "Whatdoes it
mean for a cultureto remember?"
(Sturken1997: 1). In the same vein, MaryDouglasconsiders that institutionscan "Rememberand Forget"(Douglas1986). Connerton'sHow
SocietiesRememberconstitutesanotherfamous exampleof this imprudentsemanticexten-

207
This content downloaded from 143.107.8.99 on Thu, 06 Aug 2015 18:35:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

TheAbusesof Memory:
Reflections
on the MemoryBoomin Anthropology

sion. However,as Funkensteinobserves,"consciousnessand memorycan only be realized

by an individualwho acts, is aware,and remembers.Justas a nationcannoteat or dance,
neither can it speak or remember.Rememberingis a mental act, and therefore it is
absolutelyand completelypersonal"(Funkenstein1989:6). Fora criticallookat this misuse
of "remembering,"
see also Kansteiner(2002).
5"Vicarious
memories"occurwhen someone "remembers"
events that have not been perand
Climo
In
her
Memoriesof the SlaveTrade,
sonallyexperiencedby her/him(Teski
1995).
RosalindShaweloquentlycapturescontemporarymemoriesof the Atlanticslave trade in
Temneritualpractices(SierraLeone).However,her use of "remembering"
seems hazardous
to me. Forinstance,she proposesto explorethe way"inwhichthe slavetrade is forgotten
as historybut rememberedas spirits"(Shaw2002: 9). But,can we really"remember"
somethat
did
we
not
Can
someone
"remember"
the
slave
trade?
thing
experience?
to
6Handlershowedeffectivelythat the conceptof identitycannot"beappliedunthinkingly
other placesand times"(Handler1994:27). Thesame remainsto be verifiedfor the notion
of memory.
7In the same vein, one might be intriguedby the resemblancesbetweencertainapproaches to traditionand so-called "culturalmemory."Consider,for instance,the definitionof
"tradition"proposedby Shils (1983),and see how it overlapswith the semanticfield of
memory.FollowingShils,"Memoryleaves an objectivedeposit in tradition.The pastdoes
not have to be rememberedby all who reenactit. [...] Butto become a tradition,and to
remaina tradition,a patternof assertionor action must have entered into memory"(Shils
1983: 167).Whatare then the conceptuallimitsbetweenthe notionsof memoryand tradition? Istraditionthe "presenceof the past in society"(ibid:162)- or is that memory?
8Foran exception,see Bourguet,Valensiand Wachtel(1990).

REFERENCES
Appadurai,Arjun.1981. "Thepastas a scarceresource."Man16: 201-219.
NewGermanCritique
65 : 125Assman,Jan.1995."Collective
Memoryand CulturalIdentity."
133.
Aug6,Marc.1998. Lesformesde I'oubli.Paris:Payot.
Barth, Fredrik.1990. "TheGuruand the Conjurer:Transactionsin Knowledgeand the
Man25(4):640-653.
Shapingof Culturein SoutheastAsiaand Melanesia."
Bastide,Roger.1970. "Memoirecollectiveet sociologiedu bricolage."L'Annee
Sociologique
21: 65-108.
Battaglia,Debbora.1992. "TheBodyin the Gift:Memoryand Forgettingin SabarlMortuary
AmericanEthnologist19(1):3-18.
Exchange."
. 1993. "AtPlay in the Fields (and Borders)of the Imaginary:Melanesian
Transformations
of Forgetting."
CulturalAnthropology
8(4):430-442.
Baxter,Charles.1999. The Businessof Memory.TheArt of Rememberingin an Age of
SaintPaul, Minnesota:GraywolfPress.
Forgetting.
Bloch, Maurice.1998. How WeThinkTheyThink:Anthropological
Approachto Cognition,
and
UK:
Westview
Press.
Memory Literacy.
Bourguet,Marie-Noelle,LucetteValensiand NathanWachtel.1990. BetweenMemoryand
History.Chur:HarwoodAcademicPublishers.
Boyarin,Jonathan.1991. PolishJewsin Paris:TheEthnography
of Memory.Bloomingtonand
Indianapolis:IndianaUniversityPress.

208
This content downloaded from 143.107.8.99 on Thu, 06 Aug 2015 18:35:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

DAVIDBERLINER

. 1994 Remapping Memory: the Politics of Time Space. Minneapolis: University

of MinnesotaPress.
de France.
Candau,Joel. 1998. Memoireet identite.Paris : PressesUniversitaires
Carsten,Janet. 1995. "ThePoliticsof Forgetting:Migration,Kinshipand Memoryon the
Peripheryof the SoutheastAsianState."].Roy.Anthrop.Inst.1: 317-335.
Climo, Jacob and Maria Cattell. 2002. Social Memoryand History.Anthropological
WalnutCreek,CA:AltamiraPress.
Perspectives.
Cohn,Bernard.1995. "ThePastsof an IndianVillage."In Time:Historiesand Ethnologies.
Hugues, Diane and Thomas Trautmann,eds. pp. 21-30. Ann Arbor:Universityof
MichiganPress
Cole, Jennifer.2001. ForgetColonialism?Sacrificesand the Art of Memory.Berkeley/Los
Universityof CaliforniaPress.
Angeles/London:
Connerton, Paul. 1989. How Societies Remember.Cambridge/NewYork: Cambridge
UniversityPress.
Crapanzano,Vincent. 2004. ImaginativeHorizons:An Essay in Literary-Philosophical
Anthropology.
Chicago:The Universityof ChicagoPress.
est dans I'attente."Cahiersd'Etudes
Dakhlia,Jocelyne.1990. "L'histoire
Africaines30(3):251278.

Dosse,Francois.1999. "Lamithode historiqueet les tracesm6morielles."InLedefi du XXle

siecle.Relierles connaissances.EdgarMorin,ed. pp. 317-326. Paris:Editionsdu Seuil.
Douglas,Mary.1986. HowInstitutionsThink.Syracuse:SyracuseUniversityPress.
Fabian,Johannes. 1999. "Rememberingthe Other: Knowledgeand Recognitionin the
Explorationof CentralAfrica."CriticalEnquiry26: 49-69.
Feld,Stevenand KeithBasso.1996. Sensesof Place.SantaFe:Schoolof AmericanResearch
Press.
Funkenstein,Amos. 1989. "CollectiveMemoryand HistoricalConsciousness."
Historyand
Memory1(1):6.
Gedi,Noaand YigalElam.1996. "CollectiveMemory- WhatIsIt?"Historyand Memory8(1):
30-50.
Gillis, John. 1994. "Memory and Identity: The History of a Relationship." In
Commemorations:
ThePoliticsof NationalIdentity.Gillis,John,ed. pp. 3-27. Princeton:
PrincetonUniversityPress.
Goody,Jack.1972. TheMythof the Bagre.Oxford: ClarendonPress.
Halbwachs,Maurice.1994. [1925] Lescadressociauxde la memoire.Paris:EditionsAlbin
Michel.
.

1997 [1950] La

collective. Paris: Albin Michel.

memoire

In Commemorations:
Handler,Richard.1994. "Is'Identity'a UsefulCross-Cultural
Concept?"
The Politics of National Identity.Gillis, John, ed. pp. 27-40. Princeton:Princeton
UniversityPress.
Hastrup,Kirsten.1992. OtherHistories.London:Routledge.
Herzfeld,Michael.1991. A Placein History.Socialand MonumentalTimein a CretanTown.
NewJersey:PrincetonUniversityPress.
Jing,Jun. 1996. TheTempleof Memories.History,Powerand Moralityin a ChineseVillage.
Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress.
Kansteiner,Wulf. 2002. "FindingMeaning in Memory:A MethodologicalCritiqueof
CollectiveMemoryStudies."Historyand Theory41: 179-197.
209
This content downloaded from 143.107.8.99 on Thu, 06 Aug 2015 18:35:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

TheAbusesof Memory:
on the MemoryBoomin Anthropology
Reflections

Kilani,Mondher.1992. Laconstructionde la memoire.Lelignageet la saintetedans I'oasis

d'ElKsar.Geneve:Laboret Fides.
69:
Klein,Lee.2000. "Onthe Emergenceof Memoryin HistoricalDiscourse."
Representations
127-150.
KroeberA. and C. Kluckhohn.1952. Culture:A CriticalReviewof Conceptsand Definitions.
NewYork:RandomHouse.
Lacapra,Dominique.1998. Historyand MemoryafterAuschwitz.Ithaca:CornellUniversity
Press.
Lapierre,Nicole. 2001. Le silencede la memoire.A la recherchedes Juifsde Plock.Paris:
EditionsLeLivrede Poche.
Megill,Allan.1998. "History,Memory,Identity."Historyof the HumanSciences11(3):37-62.
MiddeltonDavidand DerekEdwards.1990. Collective
London/NewBury/New
Remembering.
Delhi:Sage.
Nora, Pierre.1972. "Memoirecollective."In La NouvelleHistoire,JacquesLe Goff,Roger
Chartieret Jacaues Revel, eds. pp. 398-401. C.E.P.L.,Les Encyclop6diesdu Savoir
Moderne.
1989. "BetweenMemoryand history:LesLieuxde M6moire."Representations
26: 7-24.
Olick,JeffreyandJoyceRobbins.1998. "SocialMemoryStudies:From'CollectiveMemory'to
the HistoricalSociologyof MnemonicPractices."
AnnualReviewof Sociology24: 105140.
Radley,Alan.1990. "Artefacts,
Memoryand a Senseof the Past."In CollectiveRemembering,
DavidMiddeltonand DerekEdwards,eds. pp.46-59. London/NewBury/NewDelhi:Sage.
Oxford/NewYork:Berg.
Radstone,Susannah.2000. Memoryand Methodology.
Rappaport,Joanne. 1990. The Politicsof Memory.Native historicalinterpretationin the
Colombian
York:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Andes.Cambridge/New
Ricoeur,Paul.2000. Lamemoire,I'histoire,I'oubli.Paris:Editionsdu Seuil.
Rosaldo,Renato.1980. llongot Headhunting1883-1974.A Study in Societyand History.
Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress.
the PersonalPast.Descriptions
Ross,Bruce.1991.Remembering
of Autobiographical
Memory.
NewYork/Oxford:
OxfordUniversityPress.
Shaw,Rosalind.2001. Memoriesof the SlaveTrade.Ritualand the HistoricalImaginationin
SierraLeone.Chicago/London:
The ChicagoUniversityPress.
Shils,Edward.1983. Tradition.Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress.
StolerAnnand KarenStrassler.2000. Castingsforthe Colonial:MemoryWorkin 'NewOrder'
Studiesin Societyand History42(1):4-48.
Java.Comparative
ColonialMemories:
Stoller,Paul.1995. Embodying
SpiritPossession,Powerand the Haukain
WestAfrica.NewYork/London
: Routledge.
Strathern,Andrew.1996. BodyThoughts.AnnArbor:The Universityof MichiganPress.
Sturken,Marita.1997. TangledMemories:The VietnamWar,the AIDSEpidemic,and the
Politicsof Remembering.
Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress.
Sutton,David.2001. Remembrance
of Repasts:AnAnthropology
of Foodand Memory.New
York/Oxford:
Berg.
Richard.
1993. PresentPast. Modernityand the MemoryCrisis.Ithaca/London:
Terdiman,
CornellUniversityPress.

210
This content downloaded from 143.107.8.99 on Thu, 06 Aug 2015 18:35:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

DAVID
BERLINER

Teski, Mareaand Jacob Climo.1995. The Labyrinthof Memory.Ethnographic

Journeys.
Westport/London:
Berginand Garvey.
Thomson,Alistair,MichaelFrischand Paula Hamilton.1994. The Memoryand History
Debates:Some InternationalPerspectives.OralHistory22(2):33-43.
TodorovTzvetan.1995. Lesabusde la memoire.Paris : Arlda.
Tonkin, Elizabeth.1992. Narratingour Past. The Social Constructionof Oral History.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Vansina,Jan.1980. "Memoryand OralTradition."In TheAfricanPastSpeaks.Essaysin Oral
Traditionand History.Miller,Joseph,ed. pp. 262-279. Folkestone:Dawson-Archon.
Ethos28(4):493-510.
White,Geoffrey.2001. "Historiesand Subjectivities."
Whitehouse, Harvey.2002. "ReligiousReflexivityand TransmissiveFrequency."Social
Anthropology
10(1):91-103.
Winter,Jay. 2000. "The Generationof Memory.Reflectionson the MemoryBoom in
HistoricalStudies."GermanHistoricalInstitute27.
Contemporary
Zelizer,Barbie.1995. "Readingthe PastAgainstthe Grain:The Shapeof MemoryStudies."
CriticalStudiesin MassCommunication
12: 214-239.

211
This content downloaded from 143.107.8.99 on Thu, 06 Aug 2015 18:35:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions