How Societies Remember

In “How Societies Remember,” by Paul Connerton (1989), he expands upon Halbwach’s idea of communal memory. He opens with the theory that present factors distort our vision of the past, and the past distorts our interpretation of the present. To this point, he says, “We experience our present world in a context which is casually connected with past events and objects…” (pg 1) He then goes on to explain his thesis statement, which is that images and knowledge of the past are sustained and conveyed by ritual performances and commemorative ceremonies (pg 4). He believes that “If there is such a thing as social memory…we are likely to find it in commemorative ceremonies” (pg 5). Connerton then  distinguishes social memory from historical reconstructionism, emphasizing the role of the historian in the ways that societies are built and remembered. He explains that in the building of nations, the technique of organized forgetting is often employed by the larger power to strip the smaller power of their national identity and collective memories of their nation. Connerton speaks at length about oral histories, stating that informal narrative history is a feature of communal memory. “Oral histories seek to give voice to what would otherwise remain voiceless…by reconstituting the life histories of individuals.” (pg 18) He discusses the role of “subordinate groups” in creating shared memories, and brings up the point that the oral history of subordinate groups will not fit our preconceived notions about what an individual’s life history should look like, because we aren’t used to this type of narrative (pg 19). Connerton then speaks directly about Halbwach’s work, succinctly summarizing his theories that “it is through membership of a certain group that individuals are able to acquire & recall their memories” (pg 36). He shares his criticisms of Halbwach’s work, saying that he (Halbwach) should’ve realized that knowledge of the past is “conveyed and sustained by (more or less) ritual performances.” (pg 38) Connerton ends his criticism with an interesting question that neither he nor Halbwachs was really able to answer: How are these collective memories passed on from one generation to the next? (pg 38)

In my opinion, Connerton’s theories were well thought out, but he should’ve supported his main theory more, (that collective memory and knowledge is sustained by ritual ceremonies and performances) and given more concrete examples of this. I took from it that religious ceremonies, like celebrating Christmas or Hanukkah, and participating in ritual ceremonies like graduations, weddings, and funerals, teach us about our past and carry on traditions for future generations.

 

I found his point about “organized forgetting” particularly resonant, especially with what has been going on with our country today. Organized forgetting has been seen in the USSR, Nazi Germany, South Africa, and many other countries that I’m less informed about, but also, in a smaller way, the US. What we learned about last class, with the confederate statues being erected after the Jim Crowe era and the Civil Rights era, proves this point. People were whitewashing the Civil War, changing the reasons it was fought and giving it a more noble history. They succeeded, too. Many southerners today still support the Confederacy and the “War of Northern Aggression” and don’t pay attention to the fact that the war was primarily fought over slavery.

In Connerton’s critique of Halbwachs, I thought it was a bit unfair of him to criticize Halbwachs for not realizing that knowledge is remembered through ritual ceremonies. If Halbwachs had come upon this point in the 1920’s when he was publishing his ideas, Connerton wouldn’t have been able to publish a book about ritual ceremony some 60 years later! I’m unsure of why he would criticize Halbwach for this–in my opinion, he should’ve refrained from some of his more critical comments and simply acknowledged that his work was built on the back of Halbwach’s earlier realizations.