UPDATE: WED MORNING, This rough couple of pages is missing an introduction, the first section (rhet and pm), and all semblance of citations. I also trail off towards the end, but this is as far as it's getting today. I shall update soon. Forgive me if this causes any confusion. Still willing to hear comments on my *cough* working draft.
Rhetoric and Public Memory
Rhetoric and public memory have a relationship that is organic and yet extremely complex. Kendal Phillips says “the ways memories attain meaning, compel others to accept them, and are themselves contested, subverted, and supplanted by other memories are essentially rhetorical (Phillips PG).”
“These memories that both constitute our sense of collectivity and are constituted by our togetherness are thus deeply implicated in our persuasive activities and in the underlying assumptions and experiences upon which we building meanings and reasons. (Phillips 3)”
“’Public’ situates shared memory where it is often the most salient to collectives, in constituted audiences, positioned in some kind of relationship of mutuality that implicates their common interests, investments or destinies, with profound political implications (Blair et al, 6).”
“…collapse under the sign ‘public memory’ those studies taking the stance that beliefs about that past are shared among members of a group, whether a local community or the citizens of a nation-state (Blair et al, 6)”
Blair, Ott, and Dickenson identify 6 common assumptions of public memory scholars (6):
1. Memory is activated by present concerns, issues, anxieties
2. Memory narrates shared identities, constructing sense of communal belonging
3. Memory is animated by affect
4. Memory is partial, partisan, and thus often contested
5. Memory relies on material and/or symbolic supports
6. Memory has a history
I shall explain these further through a discussion of how these assumptions come to play within my specific texts later, but I would like to begin with a broader context of how a situation like the aftermath of a disaster like Hurricane Katrina utilizes public memory.
How does it operate in the situation of Katina and my texts?
Whose memories? One important facet of public memory is that is shared by a group or collective, and each person remembers in his or her own way (Casey 23). Survivors will remember the storm differently than those who simply watched on TV. Journalist will remember differently that those whose homes were destroyed. Thus when we discuss the public manifestations of memory we must ask whose memories are being portrayed and in what way are they contested by others of the group or collective. For Katrina, certain perspectives were broadcasted on national television and the storm in this way became part of the nation’s memory. The network news was one facet of information that helped to construct the nation’s memory while politicians, local news, internet, etc. also contribute to this understanding. However, reiterated in the anniversary specials are (for the most part?) those network news perspectives, some child of these original memories. These are of course, complicated by all of the other sources mentioned as well as local memories.
Recall and Context Memories do not act (how do memories act?) in isolation. With each invocation, the collective memory shifts. Influenced by what’s gone on since and the current situation, the memory does hold resemblance (most of the time) to the event, but can never reaches an exact or true representation of the event. (Invocation is from Casey, but this idea is not in his essay. Where did I get this?) Over five years has passed since Hurricane Katrina devastated the gulf coast. Since then, much has changed. Attempts to rebuild and attempts to remember influence the anniversary specials. Notably, another disaster has affected the area in the form of the BP oil spill. This well covered media event also frames these manifestations of the memory.
Instrumental rhetoric and constitutive memory Another way to approach public memory in the context of Hurricane Katrina is to contrast the instrumental features with a constitutive (tied into the word collective, but not public, yes?) whole. For example, George W. Bush speaking shortly after the disaster and Barack Obama five years later, both gave speeches concerning Katrina. We can view these speeches as instrumental, but when memory comes into question they but play a part in the whole. They did not create the memories they invoke but call up on the collective understanding of the event. They do make attempt to frame the disaster within the present in different ways, but this does not create new memories. Rather these artifacts are added to the collection of public memory concerning Katrina. Fate decides how large of a role these artifacts will play in future recollections of the event. (What’s remembered and what’s forgotten –the process- is extremely interesting, but how much of that do I need to address in this paper?) Similarly, we can see how the anniversary specials are instrumental, in that they are crafted by a particular source perhaps for certain purposes, but they engage a larger body of other memories.
Medium of Communication Monuments have been a popular text for rhetoricians interested in Public Memory. The often contested process of creating these structures, as well as the implications of the seeming permanence of concrete and stone, produce interesting questions for the scholar. These anniversary specials, as news documentaries of sorts, have no such solidity but are broadcast once on a significant weekend, then retiring to play minor roles in the active shaping of the public memory. (Where was I going with this?)
“Activated by present concerns, issues, anxieties” Same as above in some ways, but this will really play within the particular themes brought out by texts.
“Narrates shared identities, constructing sense of communal belonging” Again, kind of like the above, but we can look as a question from within the text to ask who shares in the identity? Or do they? Does this piece of instrumental rhetoric fail this particular assumption?
“Animated by affect” Oh goodness, what role does emotion play? Several levels to examine this from; audience (and an abundance of pathos appeals?), journalists and survivors.
“Partial, partisan, and thus often contested” Correlates to the above in some ways, but I have no dialogue here to show how this memory may be contested. Do I draw that from my readings (example: the problematic portrayals of race in the original coverage) or should it be somewhere? Are there places in the text where it displays knowledge that a particular aspect is contested?
“Relies on material and/or symbolic supports” Goodness, I could go on and on about symbols in these texts. Do I want to? This is a largely visual in this case too, I should broach that at some point.
“Has a history” Um… re-read what they mean by this? Memory as a discipline has a history or a particular memory has a history. Isn’t history a problematic word?
QUESTIONS
(Somewhere do I need to say what my texts are?)
Isn’t it through the contestation that we understand what has been hidden? Doesn’t this mean I need to find this contestation?
Kendall Phillips, in his introduction to Framing Public Memory provides a distinction between history and memory. (I could argue about this distinction, but why? Does it add to the piece? Is it just me talking about things I don’t know?)
Collective/Public, how much do I need to explain my word choice?
I don't think you have to go into detail about the difference between history and memory. A brief mention would probably suffice, but I think it is fine for you to focus on memory--since that's what you are using.
ReplyDeleteI, too, am using public memory. I look forward to reading your paper as it develops--it will give me ideas for mine:)