Artwork by Francis Picabia
The
Fragility Of Memory In A Postmodern Age
In the
twenty-first century, we know more about memory than ever before, but trust its
resources less. The idea of memory, conceived as the keystone of identity for
the nineteenth century, has been reconceived as the debris of lost identities,
the free-stones of aging memory palaces that have fallen into ruins. Since the
last quarter of the twentieth century, the topic has inspired intense interest
among historians, literary critics, folklorists, sociologists, anthropologists,
psychologists, and neurobiologists. Across the curriculum, scholars are as one
in noting that memory is easily and often remodeled, almost always distorted,
and hence unreliable as a guide to the realities of the past. The idea of
memory, therefore, is noteworthy for its fragility, vulnerable as it is not
only to the vagaries of the mind but also to social, political, and cultural
forces that would alter or obliterate it.
On the
edge of fragile memory lies nostalgia, the most elusive of memory's protean
forms and one beginning to receive critical attention. An admixture of
sweetness and sorrow, it expresses a longing for a vanishing past often more
imaginary than real in its idealized remembrance. Nostalgia exercised a
powerful appeal in the Romantic sentiments of the nineteenth century, tied as
it was to regret over the passing of ways of life eroded by economic and social
change, a generalized popular enthusiasm for innovation, and rising
expectations about what the future might hold. Nostalgia was the shadow side of
progress. Chastened by the disappointments of the twentieth century, however,
the idea of progress has fallen on hard times, and nostalgia presents itself as
an even more diffuse longing for a fantasy world that never existed (for
example, the classless society in Communist propaganda). So reconceived,
nostalgia has come to be criticized as a dangerous surrender to anarchistic
illusion that contributes to memory's vulnerability to exploitation and misuse.
Situated
at an interdisciplinary crossroads, the idea of memory has yet to promote an
exchange between humanists and scientists, though they make their way along
converging avenues of research. Scientists have moved away from Freud's claim
about the integrity of memory's images. Steady research in psychology over the
course of the twentieth century exposed the intricacies of the mental process
of remembering, which involves complex transactions among various regions of
the brain. For psychologists, remembering is conceived as a dynamic act of
remodeling the brachial pathways along which neurons travel as they respond to
sensory stimuli. The images of memory are encoded in neural networks, some in
short-term and some in long-term configurations, and so are mobilized as
conscious memories in multifold and continually changing ways. Memory resides
in these ephemeral expressions, and its images are constantly subject to
revision in the interplay of well-established patterns and chance circumstances
that governs recall.
Some
neuroscientists propose that memory is an adaptive strategy in the biological
life process. Drawing on Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection, the
American neuroscientist Gerald Edelman (1929–) argues that there is a selective
process by which memory cells cluster in the neuronal groups that map neural pathways.
He identifies two repertoires of such clusters in the gestation of the brain,
one, primarily genetic, in embryo, and the other, primarily adaptive, after
birth. They establish the categories of recognition through which the brain
thenceforth processes external stimuli, though these categories are continually
modified as the brain adapts to new life experience. In this sense, each act of
recollection is a creative process that entails a reconfiguration of synaptic
connections. There is an intriguing analogy between Edelman's two stages of
memory cell formation and the mnemonist's two-step reinforcement of memory in
repertoires of places and images. There is a resonance as well between
Edelman's notion of the brain's mapping of neural pathways and Halbwachs's
conception of the topographical localization of social memory. Both affirm the
constructive nature of the act of memory in the interplay of recognition and
context.
(This article was found on the web and I thought to share)
No comments:
Post a Comment