Reading: Dmitri Nikulin: Memory and History

No one ever remembers alone – Ricoeur.

History is a multi layered enterprise. It does not rely on one universal history; instead it embraces a variety of histories. At a micro level – personal memory is private and internal. But as Halbwach says personal history is inscribed into a collective memory. Personal memory feels the need to understand itself within the framework of a more external, in this case, collective memory. Obviously then, collective memory remains broken, relying on oral transmissions and rituals remaining within a group. Historical memory, the macro; picks up these pieces, by drawing this unified picture of the past. This tends to translate into a one-sided, filtered, historian’s view of history. I agree when Nikulin says we must substitute the one unified, yet no one’s history with a whole plurality of fragmented histories. Purists would probably cringe – the thought of having a chaotic, emotional and multi sided view. Isn’t it better having a single integrated one – that doesn’t lend itself to a spectrum of interpretation? Last week’s reading tackled the topic of who decides what is considered as history. This ‘single integrated one’ is only going to be a reflection of what these decision makers believe we need to know. When living in today’s present we are bombarded with a variety of opinions and ‘memories’ by the media and people in authority, and we are left with interpreting it as we like, then why can’t we treat history as being a present, only a few years ago.

Another interesting point was Nikulin’s comparison between memory and imagination. Both are never concerned about the ‘is’. One is about things that have happened, the other is about things that could – that being a distance from the perceived and the thought.

Memory is alive.
Memory, as something in your mind is always prone to change – by forgetting and fabricating. By wanting to believe something, your memory slowly rewrites itself and by wanting to let go of certain details, your memory erases itself. This ensures that memory is never boring and remains novel. Self-interpretation is a constant process of evaluating your memories.

Nikulin also discusses an imageless history versus a nameless one. An image is more open to interpretation than a name. An image needs a narrative – it is external and secondary to the narrative. An image only assists in showing what the name intends to tell. The priority of history is to be told, and not shown.