Collective Memory
Collective memory is a relatively new field in the post-World War II period. The central figures in this field are Maurice Halbwachs and Barry Schwartz. Halbwachs was the primary precursor in the field of collective memory. He saw collective memory as originating in small groups, focusing his study on families ‘memory throughout his career. He believed that memory would not extend beyond the group’s boundaries, and if one of these groups is dispersed, their memory would disappear with them. In more recent pieces, however, Halbwachs admitted the possibility of expanding collective memory past their original group’s boundaries (Shuman H, pp.6-9, 2015). Halbwachs is one of the most important figures on the subject of collective memory, and he suggests three differentiations when it comes to memory: The first of these distinctions he calls the autobiographical memory, which contains all individual personal experiences; Second, he defines the collective memory, as a set of experiences bestowed by members of a set group – generally small, to an individual; Finally, the third classification he called historical memory, an official set of events experienced by individuals and passed on generation by generation (Halbwachs, pp.50-87, 1950).
Halbwachs’ theories and ideas were inherited by his successor Barry Schwartz. Schwartz drastically expanded the scope of the analysis carried out by Halbwachs, including photographs, poems, cartoons, structures, newspapers, and whatever else can be taken to indicate the memory of a period. Schwartz also expanded upon Halbwachs definition of collective memory, stating that:
Although thorough, the work of these two authors has been further expanded by another. Based on Halbwachs’ work, Jeffrey K. Olick further developed the definitions of collective memory into Individualist and Collectivist groups. Individualists consider memory to its innate neurological and cognitive factors. Contrastingly, collectivists would favour social and cultural patterning of public and personal memory. Such differentiation entails that individualists see memory as a subjective category in one’s mind, and collectivists interpret it as patterns of publicly available symbols objectified in society. (Olick, 1999). Olick provided, to unify the two groups, a very comprehensive model including cognitive, physiological, and social aspects of memory. As he states:Collective memory refers to the distribution throughout society of what individuals believe, feel and know about the past. Only individuals possess the capacity to contemplate the past, but this does not mean that beliefs originate in the individual alone or can be explained on the basis of unique experience. (Schwartz cited in Shuman 2015, p.9)
Olick’s theory distinguishes itself from others because it includes societal power dynamics in his analysis. In this unique feature, Olick considers power dynamics in a society affecting the outcome of its history or the conversion of collective memory (vernacular, private folk) to historical memory (public, standardised, public). In other words, a social group with relatively more power over others would have control or influence over the conversion from collective memory to historical memory.only individuals remember, though they may do so alone or together, and any publicly available commemorative symbols are interpretable only to the degree to which elicit a reaction in some group of individuals (Olick 1999, p.338).
The notion of ‘Collective Memory’ and its presence in modern nation-states is built on further by Zhang Wang in his 2018 book ‘Memory, Politics and Conflict’. Wang describes three approaches used to form a collective identity within groups and societies. The first method is ‘Primordalisim’, which views identity as inherited and resolute. The second is ‘Constructivism’, which views identity as more fluid and moldable, and the third is ‘Instrumentalism’, which views identity as something that can be harnessed and manipulated for the benefit of a smaller group or individual (Wang, Z 2018, p. 12, 13 & 14). Wang underlines the notions of historical ‘trauma’ and ‘glory’ as key ingredients which bind a community’s sense of collective memory and how these emotions are highly effective at unifying individuals. The symbolism attached to these occurrences and events then acts as a guide on how individuals should interpret and react to the world around them (Wang, Z 2018, p. 17 & 19). Olick also notes the importance of this dimension of national trauma to individuals within these societies, with these emotions becoming problematic and volatile when left unresolved (Olick, J 1999, p. 343 & 344).
Youth indoctrination is another key method used to steer and alter collective national memory, with school textbooks often forming the foundation on how an individual interprets historical events. Wang notes how these texts often selectively highlight what should be emphasized from a nation’s history to tailor the readers internal narrative to fit the current perspective of the groups holding power (Wang, Z 2018, p.43). The factual presentation of school textbooks lends their content a sense of legitimacy and are regularly readily accepted by individuals educated by them to be the official version of events, with these simplistic narratives projecting an easy explanation of the complexities of national identity (Wang, Z 2018, p. 45 & 46). The Franco dictatorship in Spain used this tactic of textbook indoctrination as a way to build a sense of legitimacy of his power and guarantee its longevity in the years following the Spanish Civil War (Pinto, D 2004, p. 650). A key textbook promoted by the regime was ‘Asi quiro ser’, which positioned Franco as a god-like figure, inseparable from Spanish national identity and implored the readers on their personal duty to loyally serve him (Pinto, D 2004, p. 658 & 662). While the actions of the Franco regime clearly demonstrate a cynical revision and manipulation of history, Wang also notes the positive potential that the revision of history can achieve as a method of reconciliation of injustices or as a way to restore marginalized information (Wang, Z 2018, p. 51 & 52).
The study of collective memory can be of great importance, especially in the case of Spain during its civil war and the subsequent government of Franco. Since these groups’ practices and stories have a deep weight on how individuals perceive themselves and experience the world, it is valid to analyse a few of these narratives to determine whether the dominant group’s narrative had power over marginal stories. This project intends to use collective memory analysis applied to the Spanish civil war and the subsequent government of Francisco Franco, contrasting the official, public information with folk and private narratives of the period. It is not in the scope of the project to discredit statements or challenge cultural practices. Rather it seeks to identify marginal stories and contrast them with the official historical memory.
This page has paths:
- The Bones Beneath Franco: Understanding Collective Memory from the Spanish Anarchist Movement to the Legacy of Francisco Franco. Andre Luiz Fonseca Batista Lobo