David Manier and William Hirst, "A Cognitive Taxonomy of Collective Memories" (Summary)

The concept of "collective memory" encompasses a broad range of phenomena, including rituals, traditions, myths, historical events, and recent communal recollections. However, treating these diverse forms of collective memory in a coherent manner can be challenging due to their elasticity. To address this challenge, we propose constructing a taxonomy of collective memory to better understand their commonalities and differences.

 

In our view, collective memory goes beyond mere shared recollection within a community; it must serve a specific function for that community. Not all shared memories can be considered collective memories; rather, they must contribute to the community's sense of identity. While some scholars emphasize the narrative form of collective memory, we believe that shared experiences, whether articulated or not, play a crucial role in shaping group identity.

 

One approach to categorizing collective memory practices is to differentiate between communicative and cultural memory, as proposed by Assmann. Communicative memories are transmitted through everyday communication within a limited temporal horizon, while cultural memories are preserved across generations through societal practices and rituals, with an indefinite temporal horizon.

 

We also draw inspiration from cognitive psychology's understanding of individual memory systems to develop a taxonomy of collective memories. Just as human memory consists of distinct but interconnected structures, we propose that collective memory can be subdivided based on different recollective experiences accompanying memories. Explicit memory involves conscious recollection, while implicit memory operates without conscious awareness.

 

Psychologists use direct and indirect memory tasks to assess explicit and implicit memory, respectively. In direct tasks, individuals consciously recall previously studied material, while in indirect tasks, memory influences behavior without conscious awareness of recollection. Studies have shown dissociations between explicit and implicit memory at both psychological and neurological levels, highlighting the distinctiveness of these memory systems.

 

By applying principles from cognitive psychology to collective memory, we aim to better understand how individual and collective memory systems interact and influence each other. While collective memories are not mere aggregates of individual memories, the distinctive structures of human memory may shape the varieties of collective memories observed in different communities.

 

Brain imaging studies have revealed that the explicit/implicit memory distinction has a neurological basis, with explicit memory tasks correlating with greater activation in the hippocampus and related brain structures. This aligns with findings from studies on amnesia, where damage to the hippocampus impairs explicit but not implicit memory tasks. In contrast, implicit memory tasks do not rely on the hippocampus to the same extent.

2

Psychologists have also classified memory based on content, distinguishing between episodic and semantic memories. Episodic memories involve personally experienced events with temporal and spatial specificity, while semantic memories lack this specificity and refer to factual knowledge. Amnesic individuals typically struggle with episodic and declarative memories but can acquire new facts.

 

Similarly, procedural memories, which encompass skills or know-how, differ from declarative memories, which include both factual knowledge and memory for experiences. Amnesics can acquire procedural memories normally but may have difficulty with declarative memories.

 

These distinctions at the individual level prompt questions about their applicability to collective memory. Can we identify collective analogues to explicit/implicit memory, episodic/semantic memory, and declarative/procedural memory? And if so, how can these subdivisions enhance our understanding of collective memory?

 

Collective episodic memory: Like individual episodic memory, collective episodic memory involves recollective experiences and spatial-temporal information. Communities form collective memories of events in their shared past, contributing to their identity. Whether it's friends attending a sports match or residents experiencing a historical event like 9/11, these shared memories shape group identity.

Collective semantic memory: Collective semantic memories encompass factual knowledge shared within a community. Lived semantic memories, relating to contemporary events, carry personal and communal significance. Distant semantic memories, such as historical events like Washington's crossing of the Delaware, lack the same emotional impact and sense of responsibility. While both types of memories contribute to collective identity, lived semantic memories often carry a heavier emotional burden.

 

Collective Procedural or Implicit Memory: Contrasting semantic memories with community traditions, practices, and rituals, we classify the latter as collective procedural memories. While rituals serve various community functions beyond memory effects, they can indeed be viewed as forms of memory, focusing on procedures rather than facts or events. For instance, Roman Catholic parishioners may engage in Mass without explicit memory of its symbolic meanings or historical origins.

 

Rituals and traditions serve as mnemonic tools shaping collective identity and reminding practitioners of declarative memories. The Mass, for example, aims to recall Jesus's crucifixion, invoking collective feelings and attitudes through its actions. While these rituals may be performed without conscious awareness of their learned nature, they embody knowledge that influences individuals' lives profoundly.

 

Summary and Conclusions: Collective procedural and collective episodic memories are both examples of collective memory but involve different types of memory with distinct properties. Our proposed cognitive taxonomy of collective memory offers a way to map individual memory constraints onto collective memory. For example, collective episodic memories are more susceptible to interference and forgetting than collective semantic memories, which, in turn, are more susceptible than procedural memories.

 

Considering the properties of different collective memory types, not just memory practices, provides a nuanced understanding of the literature. For instance, Assmann's distinction between communicative and cultural memory can be better understood by considering whether the memory type is collective episodic, semantic, or procedural. Collective procedural memories are more likely to be retained over time, less likely to be distorted, and more likely to form the foundation of a community's cultural memory and identity. Such distinctions enhance our understanding of collective memory dynamics and properties.