Although I found Derrida’s piece to be difficult to understand, I think it fit in very well with our previous conversations in class. I think that digging deeper into what an archive is is important to understanding the relationship between memory and history, and how they differ. Another point that I found powerful in Derrida’s piece was his notion that “the citizens who thus held and signified political power were considered to possess the right to make or represent the law.” (Derrida 2) I found this quote to relate directly to our discussions about historical and archival power, and how those in power have the opportunity, ability and privilege to tell history the way that they want to regardless of what others believe. Derrida also mentions the concept of deconstruction and how the break down of archives can allow us to relearn the meaning of the memory and history.
Building off of Derrida’s argument, Pierre Nora puts memory into context with history and compares the two of them. He discusses the fundamental differences between history and memory, and how history is performed through tradition. I found that this concept also related back to our other discussions, especially our discussion on Connerton’s piece because he talks about how we must constantly perform our histories in order to keep them active.
I enjoyed reading both of these pieces because they helped me further advance my understanding of the complex relationship between memory and history. I know that these two have an intertwined relationship yet it is hard to differ one from the other, because both history and memory act similarly in our lives. The concept of the archive helped me understand how history needs that factual evidence, such as an archive, to survive and live on into the future whereas memory is transmitted orally and can change day to day.