Lone Star Pasts: Memory and History in Texas

Chapter 11: History and Collective Memory in Texas: The Entangled Stories of the Lone Star State

Chapter 11 History and Collective Memory in Texas: The Entangled Stories of the Lone Star State Randolph B. Campbell The past lives in the present as both history and memory. History, at least as the discipline is generally understood today, is the written account of the past provided by scholars who base their works primarily on archival sources. History is a form of entertainment, but most regard it also as a means of informing and instructing the present by examining the past. Memory, which may be both individual and collective, is the deliberate recall of past events and developments. Every individual has a memory of personal experiences that serves as a key part of his or her identity. Individuals constantly interpret and evaluate their personal memories of the past as a basis for understanding and acting in the present. Individuals, however, also share collective memories received from families, schools, churches, museums, historic sites, works of art, and purveyors of popular culture such as magazines and movies. For example, no living person in the United States experienced the Civil War, but most share memories of that conflict with their fellow Americans. And those collective memories influence their view of the nation and themselves in the present. Collective memory is in some respects indistinguishable from popular myths about the past—both, for example, depend more on emotional and cultural needs than on fact. It seems, however, that collective memory is less grand in origin and scope than myth. The famed Texas Myth, for example, entangled stories of the lone star state 271 depends on a generalized belief in the Lone Star state as an exceptional place in the world, the home of self-reliant individuals who take advantage of the bountiful opportunities provided by a new American Eden. Nothing makes a person more special than being a Texan; indeed, even many who live in the state cannot qualify. This Texas Myth clearly draws from collective memories —the story of the Alamo and the cowboy legend, for example—but it is bigger and broader than all the memories of all the great events of Texas history combined. By contrast, collective memories generally focus on remembering particular events, such as secession, the Civil War, and Reconstruction . Perhaps this distinction is overdrawn, but for purposes of analysis, collective memories may be thought of as key components of overarching myths. Over the years, history and memory generally have appeared complementary rather than antagonistic in any significant way. Historians employ individual memories, especially in the form of memoirs and oral histories, as one of their array of sources, and they analyze collective memories for insight into popular views of the past. Memory stimulates popular interest in history. Granted, that interest may be expressed more by visiting museums and historic sites and watching the History Channel than by reading the works of academic historians; nevertheless, until recently, in the words of one historian, “History and memory seemed unproblematically cozy with each other.” This seemingly cozy relationship has been challenged during the last two decades by scholars from outside the discipline of history, especially by French social scientist Pierre Nora. In seven volumes entitled Les Lieux de mémoire (the sites of memory) and an article, “Between Memory and History : Les Lieux de mémoire” that appeared in translation, Nora argued that history and memory do not complement each other but instead are in basic conflict. Nora bears quoting at length because his work stimulated scholarly interest in the concept of memory, and historians generally cite him as the intellectual godfather of this “memory surge,” possibly without considering all the implications of his argument. Memory and history, far from being synonymous, appear now to be in fundamental opposition. Memory is life, borne by living societies founded in its name. It remains in permanent evolution, open to the dialectic of forgetting and remembering, unconscious of its successive deformations, vulnerable to manipulation and appropriation, susceptible to being long dormant and periodically revived. History, on the other hand, is the reconstruction, always problematic and incomplete, of what is no longer. Memory is a personally actual 272 randolph b. campbell phenomenon, a bond tying us to the eternal present; history is a representation of the past. Memory, insofar as it is affective and magical, only accommodates those facts that suit it; it nourishes recollections that may be out of focus or telescopic , global or detached, particular...