Collective Memory

“Collective Memory” by Maurice Halbwachs

“It is in society that people normally acquire their memories. It is also in society that they recall, recognize, and localize their memories.” (page 39) Halbwachs opens with the story of a young girl who has no society–and therefore, no memory. She was moved from her original society, which was thought to be Eskimo, and sold into slavery in a different society. As a slave, she was not allowed to take part in this society, and was kicked out of it before she had a chance to internalize any of the new society. Halbwachs argues that she has no concrete memories not because of any sort of amnesia or brain damage, but because she has no society, and therefore no place to ground her self image or her memories.

He goes on to speak about how our individual memories are shaped by society’s rules and customs, and subsequently become part of society. “Collective frameworks are… precisely the instruments used by the collective memory to reconstruct an image of the past which is in accordance…with the predominant thoughts of the society.” (page 40) He also makes an astute observation that we preserve memories from each period of our lives, and because these memories are mere repetitions of the first event, they become changed over time. (page 47)

He then goes on to speak more in depth about the individual memory, and how when we escape into our memories or daydreams, we are trading one society for another. He observes, contemplative or dreamlike memory helps us to escape society. We become isolated in our own memory, thinking about people we used to know instead of the people we know now. Therefore, we escape from the society of today into the society of yesterday. (In this next paraphrased quote, I believe that when Halbwachs speaks of the “society of thought,” he means memory, or daydreams.) What distinguishes present society from the society we escape to in thought? It does not impose itself on us; we can go to it whenever we wish. We can choose to spend time with whomever we wish, whenever we wish in the society of thought. We can do whatever we want to do instead of what we’re supposed to be doing. (page 49)

After speaking for some length on the workings of individual memory, Halbwachs reveals that there is no such thing. “Individual memory is nevertheless a part or an aspect of group memory…” (page 53) He argues that there’s no such thing as completely individual memory because it is influenced by our social milieu, and that we as humans can’t help but share our memories with the society around us: “One cannot in fact think about the events of the past without discoursing upon them.” (page  53) Therefore, our memories become part of other peoples’ memories, too. I agree to an extent, but I do believe that people are capable of having private, individual memories that they do not share with others, and that aren’t influenced by one’s social environment.

The bulk of his writings in this excerpt focus on the family unit, and how being part of a family defines our role in life, our memories, and our ways of thinking. When he states, “No matter how we enter a family…we find ourselves to be part of a group where our position is determined not by personal feelings but by rules and customs independent of us that existed before us,” he means…Well, take the example of the classic nuclear family from the mid 20th century. It was somehow decided that the father would work and provide money for the family, the mother would care for the children and the home, the brother would play outside on his bike and the sister would play inside with her dolls. (And the dog would be the loyal family companion.) This family structure, although it has changed dramatically over the past few decades, was prevalent for many years and these customs and rules were ingrained quite deeply in American family life.

When writing about marriage, Halbwachs states “Both obey traditional rules that they have subconsciously learned in their own families, just as their children will learn these rules from them.” This is how we know our place in our family. I definitely agree with him on this point–what you see modeled in your own family, whether it’s the father staying home with the kids, or the parents mutually respecting each other, or the siblings growing up with a close bond, you will take on to your adult life and marriage. You learn how to behave and treat others based on the way your parents did; just as racism is learned, just as compassion is learned.

When it comes to memory, Halbwachs believes that the family shares a collective general attitude or feeling towards events or people. “The family group is accustomed to retrieving or reconstructing all its other memories following a logic of its own.” (page 52) “When the family recalls something, it clearly uses words and refers to events or images that are unique in kind.” (page 71) This is particularly true with first names: After all, names are just words that are used to represent a person and all the memories and associations attached to that person.

He summarizes by allowing that the family is not the end-all be-all of beliefs, thought, and memory. “During our entire life, we are engaged at the same time in both our family, and also in other groups. We extend our family memory in such a way as to encompass recollections of our worldly life…” (page 81) This leads to considering our family from the point of other groups, or to modifying our own worldview because of exposure to other groups besides the family.