In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Archaeologies of Social Memory In our time history aspires to the condition of archaeology. Michel Foucault The Archaeology of Knowledge Prevailing trends in European historiography maintain that, with the advent of modernity, “folk memory” underwent a fatal shock and passed away en masse. Age-old traditions of remembrance were allegedly supplanted by new constructions of “collective memory” imposed by modern states. Hobsbawm dated the extensive diffuse of “invented traditions” to 1870–1914, coinciding with the institutionalizing of national bureaucratic apparatuses.1 Similarly , Eugen Weber’s seminal study of the emergence of a modern French state and the demise of rural-peasant society outlined an almost total disappearance of folk traditions, which occurred over that same period.2 The assumption that an antiquated but thriving “living tradition” of memory died around the turn of the nineteenth century is also at the heart of Nora’s historiographical project, which takes as it starting point that “lieux de mémoire exist because there are no longer any milieux de mémoire, settings in which memory is a real part of everyday experience.”3 These dominant models of collective memory originated in Britain and France, and have been universally acclaimed and emulated.4 In contrast to the seemingly authoritative assertion that a sweeping modernization of mentalité totally transformed historical consciousness and eradicated the last vestiges of “authentic” folklore by the eve of World War I, the work of the Irish Folklore Commission demonstrated that vibrant oral traditions, which were rooted in the past, persisted well into the twentieth century—and arguably into the twenty-first century. At the same time, the folklore collectors were driven by a sense of urgency. Rural society was indeed undergoing rapid changes, and it was imperative to document oral traditions. Though many traditions were collected, inevitably countless others remained unrecorded. ( 313 ) When on fieldwork in 1935/36, Hayes discovered that the Year of the French was “still among the living traditions of the west,” but he was also regretful that oral traditions had passed away: I had not proceeded far till the realisation came that I was a little late. And I could not help often thinking of the rich harvest that might have been garnered a generation or two ago when men were still alive who saw the soldiers of France march through Connacht and heard their drums beating along its roads. He likened the traditions that he collected to “flotsam and jetsam left from the years.”5 Halbwachs, a contemporary of Hayes, chose a different maritime metaphor to illustrate the workings of social memory. He described “living memory” as a sea receding from a rocky shore and leaving behind “miniature lakes nestled amidst the rocky foundations.” The rocks stand for the social frameworks (les cadres sociaux de la mémoire), which are the contexts in which fragmented recollections—represented by the puddles—are formed into social memory.6 The historian, Hayes, was looking for surviving recollections of the past, while the sociologist, Halbwachs, was more interested in the contexts in which recollections of the past were reshaped. “Living memory” is a nebulous concept. Many studies of narrative assume that memory is an organic entity, which is grounded in the personal experiences of a particular generation and can be transmitted at the very most from grandparent to grandchild. After three generations, memory is ostensibly codified and ossified. But even though vibrancy of oral traditions diminishes with time, this process of decline cannot be readily schematized. Disintegration of memory is checked by the reconstructive dynamics of remembrance that piece together fragmented reminiscences. Models of “living memory,” founded on reifications of the distinction between oral history and oral tradition, tend to overlook the regeneration of recollections, which are adapted or reinvented to suit changing contexts. Written records of oral traditions cannot capture this fluidity. To return to the allegories mentioned, not only do the tides of “living memory” ebb and flow but the rocky landscape is also transformed, and these transitions reshape the flotsam and jetsam, which is later collected on the shore. There is a dissonance between social memory and “collected memory.” When collected and archived, oral accounts are effectively uprooted and relocated, so that analytical studies of folklore are generally not based as much on firsthand examination of oral traditions as on “fossilized” reproductions that have lost much of the versatility and dynamism of the originals. In a Freudian analysis of the function of archives, the philosopher Jacques Derrida argued that although they Conclusion ( 314 ) [3.149.234...

Share