The book has three sections, but I found the second section on “Recreating Identity and Community” the most interesting. Particularly the chapter on Apartheid South Africa, and how memory has helped in healing. Yet now post-Apartheid oral histories have to take a more individual approach in order to differentiate their experiences. The political contention present in a country as torn as South Africa during and after Apartheid was a wonderful example of how public memory takes on a political agenda, and higher purpose than just memory collection: the coalescing of a community trying to come together after severe social dislocation. Oral history did contribute to the public memory, but went into larger narratives of one voice. Oral history in post-Apartheid has the opportunity to use these memories in a more analytic way. Although reconciliation is not complete, these collections of memory no longer have to serve the one-voice purpose.
Public historians often rely on oral histories for interpreting contemporary experiences and translating those stories into history for public consumption. This type of public memory comes form the individual, but memory studies have gone beyond the stories to a collective experience that should be representative of certain social and cultural events or periods. This difference between detailed and broad shows the complications of the individual oral history approach, and the generalized pursuit of public memory.
I also really enjoyed the section on identity and community. The chapter on Cape Town gives us an example of how shared memories can start the healing process. Field talks about the meaning of loss and how we cope, creating safe spaces through nostalgia. Oral history accounts of these difficult times find a safe space as well within museums, allowing us to recognize the similarities between displaced people. It creates an opportunity for connections that might otherwise be lost.
ReplyDelete