The Complicated Nature of Collective Memory

Although Susan Sontag famously argued that “there is no such thing as collective memory,” a recent article by Roediger (2009) considers the burgeoning field of collective memory and a number of oral history and other cultural projects are forming to “preserve” such memories.

Memories themselves are tricky and many social psychological studies suggest that we use a sort of “backward reasoning” when we recall memories such that we recreate them in nuanced ways to fit our current life situation. The recall of memories isn’t as perfect as say, flipping through a photo album. This was probably Sontag’s point, as she argues, “all memory is individual, unreproducible — it dies with the person.”

If that is the case then, what are the value of studies aimed at capturing and documenting collective memories? Sontag is again helpful in suggesting that what can be crafted is collective “instruction” and an understanding of what is important to a group. We see this most often in the way iconic images are forever associated with historic events.

A critical reading of colletive memory, however, would suggest that such memories are created often to serve a dominant discourse, such as one of patriotism. The collective memory of one country engaged in a war is bound to differ from the collective memory of the other, and vice versa. Roediger (2009) suggests as much in his recent article for the European Journal of Social Psychology. Roediger, however, approaches the topic from a much more cognitive standpoint and investigates the concept of memories and social “contagion,” a word-choice he acknowledges as problematic as it implies the way others can “infect” our memories.

Perhaps the larger issue is how we want to understand collective memories and the function they serve. While the memories may differ from fact, or may be built from fact but interpreted differently, we have to decide if that is the overall point of understanding them or, if the subjective experience of these memories is what is more (or just as) important. Collective remembering, as a task, can serve important coping functions. A recent article explores how this is happening with a memorial for Flight 93. It is also important to consider whose stories are featured in presentations of collective memories. A simple cognitive psychological concept suddenly takes on political implications when we consider this, as shown by such efforts as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

Roediger (2009). Reflections on intersections between cognitive psychology and social psychology: A personal reflection. European Journal of Social Psychology.

Flight 93 Memorial Visitors Creating ‘Collective Memory’ in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

Sontag (2003). Regarding the Pain of Others.

Can we be too happy?

Happiness is the ultimate goal of life for many people. Just take a look at the hundreds of self-help books, motivational speakers, and life coaches whose primary goal is to improve subjective well-being and happiness. Even people who are already satisfied with their lives aspire to be happier. Early psychological research on happiness focused on identifying the factors that would allow people to achieve high subjective well-being. More recently, psychologists have begun to acknowledge that happiness is not just an end state that results when things go well. Instead, happiness may also be functional. For example, researchers have found that happy people did better on average than did unhappy people in the domains of work, love and health.

In light of these attempts to boost happiness, it is interesting to question whether being happier is always better. Oishi, Diener and Lucas’s (2007) study investigated the differences between moderately happy and very happy people to address questions about the optimal level of happiness. Their findings showed that people who experience the highest levels of happiness are the most successful in terms of close relationships and volunteer work, but that those who experience slightly lower levels of happiness are the most successful in terms of income, education, and political participation. They interpreted that the optimal level of happiness is likely to vary across individuals, depending on their value priorities. For those whose primary values center on achievement, moderately high levels of happiness may be optimal; for those individuals whose values give priority to close relationships and volunteer work, it is the highest level of happiness that appears to be optimal. In sum, their findings suggested that extremely high levels of happiness might not be a desirable goal. However, the critical question to answer is, “How much happiness is enough?”

Shigehiro Oishi, S., Diener, E., & Lucas, R.E. (2007). The Optimum Level of Well-Being: Can People Be Too Happy?  Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 346 – 360.

Are You Happy?