Controversy Over Collective Memory

Memory is traditionally understood as a way of maintaining and encoding information, typically a personal and individual affair. Now Bell (2008) understands collective memory as a shared and expressed memory among a group of individuals, but not something that can be transmitted to younger generations. Booth (2009) sees collective memory as a major part of community identity, something that is selectively chosen to create a sense of a people enduring across time. Importantly Booth’s conception would be what Bell may consider ‘myths’, “highly simplified narratives” based on selected places, events and persons, that are passed on to younger generations to create an idea (Bell 2008, p. 151). Collective memory is understood in this assignment as

Irish Nationalists pushed the narrative of British oppression through their use of memory in order to inspire Irish nationalism. Sean O-Riordan, an Irish boy who was killed by a British army patrol became a salient and useful memory. Booth (2009) highlights how using memory of injustice can “transform the past from a mere habitus into political action/violence”. Using slogans and murals remembering him and others like him, they sought to bring the community together against English dominion over Northern Ireland (Booth 2009). Yet this memory also exacerbates conflict between the unionists and nationalists, and sparks disunity of the Northern Ireland community. Despite a shared territory and a shared constitution, the Northern Irish political community was divided. Unlike England, where different parts of the community were able to unite from their shared history, Northern Ireland has competing collective memories that are antagonistic. The United Kingdom are unable to form unity and solidarity among the Irish, largely catholic, community in this area, and the push for a united Irish republic highlights the violent contestation of political communities. However, contestation of political communities and dominant political narratives can occur in

The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki remain a lucid memory for the Japanese people, something that greatly influences the current perception of the Japanese identity as a peaceful, strongly anti-nuclear weapons society (Kim & Schwartz 2010). Notably Japanese society unites behind the perceived injustice of the U.S. for their atomic bombs, and this history pervades their present strongly anti-nuclear weapons stance and more subtle references in Japanese stories-where nuclear radiation creates monsters like Godzilla (In the West it creates superheroes). But behind this dominant collective memory, there remains disagreement by the Japanese left-wing and conservatives about whether to highlight Japan’s own aggression. Unlike German, who formed an identity “laden with responsibility and remembrance” of its past crimes in WWII (Booth 1999, p. 254), Japan, like many societies, attempts to minimise its own aggression and cruelty. Much of the agonism over the memory of Japan’s past escalated during the ‘memory wars’ of the Hiroshima Peace Memorial museum in 1987 (Kim & Schwartz 2010). Intended to highlight the Japanese victims and injustice of the bombings, some groups pushed more recognition of the military site of the town, Japan’s own deeds in Asia and the Korean hibakusha (atomic bomb victims)