Memory and Place: From Ancient Individual Memory to Cyberspace as Contemporary
Collective Memory
Segah Sak
Bilkent University, Faculty of Art, Design and Architecture
segah@bilkent.edu.tr
Memory and place association is not a one way one for the memories are almost always
related to places, and places are not spaces but places because memories are created in
relation to them.Therefore, it is possible to explore the relationship between memory and
place in two ways. This study elaborates on both relations, concentrating on memory in
relation to place and cyberspace on the one hand, andhandling the concept of place and
cyberspace considering their relation to memory on the other.
The idea about memory’s relation to place is an ancient one since Aristotle, Cicero or
Quintilian suggested ordering and placement of mental images within mental spaces for better
remembrances. In parallel to his ancestors, Locke (2007)defined memory as the store-house
of ideas, and attributed a three-dimensional, therefore a more spatial, characteristic to the
memory. Yates (1969) was the one who studied thoroughly the art of memory and the
approaches to it elaborating on mnemonic practices for remembering: “This art seeks to
memorize through a technique of impressing ‘places’ and ‘images’ on memory” (p. 11).
Places are referred to be loci that are “easily grasped by the memory, such as a house, an
intercolumnar space, a corner, an arch, or the like”, and the images are “forms, marks or
simulacra of what we wish to remember” (p. 22). The art of memory, then, implied a method,
the method of loci. This method is contemporarily used as a method of memorizing sequence
of symbols or images rather than of remembering past experiences. Yet, it inherently
accommodates the practices of remembering.
In the broadest sense, the concept of collective memory refers to remembrances shaped by
societies and cultures in which they occur (Rossington, 2007). Halbwachs (1952) argues that
memories are reconstructed under the influence of the society. Although Halbwachs firstly
emphasizes the influence of society on the individual memory, his study leads to reference to
those “totality of thoughts” as collective memory. A memory formed in relation to its context
leads to sharing of a memory in the same context. This kind of shared memory, which is now
called collective memory is “an implicit rule that participants in any social order must
presuppose” (Connerton, 1989, p. 3).
The modes of representation within the cyberspace are manifold, and Kansteiner (2002)
accordingly describes contemporary collective memory, what the cyberspace is, as
“multimedia collages” (p. 190). As just discussed, digital representations are considered as the
images of memory. By digital representations, personal memory, as an image, takes its place
in the cyberspace. Cyberspace is “collective memory” for that it is not only an archive of
representations of the past – as cultural memory refers to (Kansteiner, 2002, p. 182) – but also
a collectively produced and received realm. Yet, it is also a cultural memory in the way that it
embraces many representations of the past as well as the contemporary cultural texts which
are already produced within the cyberspace. Now, just as Nora (1989) set forth,
“materialization of memory has been tremendously dilated, multiplied, decentralized,
democratized” (p. 14). Bush (1945, p. 143) sees storage and accumulation of data as a
blessing of science which provides "a record of ideas", and enables "man to manipulate and to
make extracts from that record". In addition, the data that this memory holds is broadcasted
and is accordingly accessible, and they together differentiate cyberspace from internal
personal memory. Possibility of sharing is a substantial feature of the cyberspace for its
constitution as a memory, because, preservation is thought to be morphing into distribution in
the digitalized world (Taylor, 1999).
Density of activities and use of the internet rendered consideration of virtual world as a space.
This approach was even reinforced with the establishment of digital cites "with the aim of
making information and services available concerning urban activities in cities" (Leite and
Zancheti, 2007, p. 112). People now had the chance to compose new communities to create
new spaces themselves according to their contemporary needs. As a result, the concept of
"public cyberspace" was formed. Spatiality of cyberspace makes it possible to look for places
within it.
“All lieux de memoire are objects mises en abîme “ (Nora, 1989, p. 14). Accordingly,
cyberspace can be considered as mises en abîme of possible digital places. Virtuality of
cyberspace, however, obstruct the adaptation of place in digital realm. However, as, here, the
subject matter is external collective memory, it seems to be reasonable to argue that
cyberspace offers a place for the ordering and imprinting of images – a place which is not at
all more virtual than the mental places of the art of memory. Therefore, it becomes possible to
claim that cyberspace itself is analogical to the places of the art of memory. In other words,
websites that are located within cyberspace offer loci into which images, “forms, marks or
simulacra of what we wish to remember” (p. 22) are disposed. Consequently, the formation
and reception of those web-sites are a contemporary art of memory.
In its embracement of digitally produced artifacts, it is also possible to establish an analogy
between the cyberspace and the physical museums and archives. Further to this fact, the
cyberspace already accommodates digital museums and archives within, in which the
representations of traditional cultural and historical artifacts are exhibited.
Art of memory is not limited to mental constructions, but further reflected upon the physical
spaces as external memories that exhibit memorial and cultural texts that help societies
remember (Kansteiner, 2002, p. 191). Those cultural texts may be the images on the walls of
the caves, caves being external memory for a specific group of people. Or, in a larger context,
the monuments located within the historical city center that constitutes an external memory
for the citizens of that particular city. In this sense, physical space is important also for that it
determines, with time, as a place, the social groups that collective memories are of
(Halbwachs, 1950) accommodating their collective performances. Still, such remembrances
owe not only to physical spatiality but also to the spatiality of human memory.
Foucault, (1998) states that “space itself, in the Western experience, has a history, and one
cannot fail to take note of this inevitable interlocking of time with space” (p. 176). Space is
produced depending on, and experienced and perceived under the effect of certain historical
circumstances. Furthermore, the experience of space through time adds to or takes away from
that space, as it becomes loaded with memories and traces of the experience to become a
place. To become more clear, placeness of a space depends on its experience and social
production – in the sense Lefebvre (1991) explains. Consequently, while a study of a space
requires considering the space within a historical context, study of a place always requires
handling it in relation to memory whether it is individual or public.
In Berlin Childhood Around 1900, Benjamin (2006) reveals how the places are as the
landmarks that help him find his way within his own memory. This autobiographical work
demonstrates how strongly memory is related to places. This space, to which memory is
attached, is among les lieux des mémoire - sites of memory that Nora (1989) establishes.
Sites of memory are not necessarily physical ones, but yet are produced socially by man just as
the places are.
Aldo Rossi (1992) considers the city as the largest of man-made places. In parallel, city is a
lieu de mémoire, that is not only architecturally constructed but also socially produced. Such
understanding of city leads to definition of it as “the locus of collective memory”, (Rossi,
1992, p. 130). Hebbert (2004) focuses on streets and explains that a public space can be a
locus of collective memory in two ways. Firstly, as it was explained above, it can operate as
an external memory and be a locus of memory through its structures, monuments, symbols
and their syntax. Secondly, it accommodates collective everyday experiences, acts as a public
sphere providing a stage for public debates or gatherings (Boyer, 1994, p. 7), and therefore
become a lieu de mémoire (Nora, 1989). Nora (1989) argues that, museums, archives or
monuments, although they are spaces in direct relation to history, are emptied of what would
make them les lieux de memoire. Therefore, it is possible to claim that they are indeed
external memories, and perhaps objects of les lieux de memoire, however are not themselves
always socially produced, as a place would, to become locus of collective memories.
Yet, there is one issue about placeness of the cities which cannot be left out of discussion, and
that is the crises about the most contemporary cities which have been objectives of many
thinkers. Among the modes of crises, there are acceleration of history (Nora, 1989), “a
panoramic flow of unstable visions” (Boyer, 1994, pp. 25), modernity’s ignorance of
historical and cultural continuity (Krier, 1984) or emergence of non-places (Augé, 1995). All
the mentioned crises result in memory disturbances both individually and collectively.
As a contemporary place, cyberspace can be handled in relation to memory. Information
within the cyberspace about the places – historical information, photographs and most
importantly plans and maps – can be thought to be supporting experiences of places. Yet,
what we spontaneously grasp from the cyberspace about places is linear representations.
Still, the recent applications of social media which have been developed especially for the
smart phone users portray efforts to confront physical places and cyberspace. Those
applications involve location-based social media such as foursquare, Gowalla, bliin, Street
Spark and Tackable. Intention of most of these applications is to let people share their realtime locations with their social network, or foster their networks depending on their location.
Another fundamental aim is to provide users with synchronous information about their
prevalent location. Such approaches can be said to have practical benefits for the experience
of the urban environment and social interaction.
REFERENCES
Augé, M. (1995). Non-places: Introduction to an Anthropology of Supermodernity. London &
New York: Verso.
Benjamin, W. (2006). Berlin Childhood Around 1900. Cambridge, Massachusetts, London:
The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Boyer, C. (1994). The City of Collective Memory: Its historical imagery and architectural
entertainments. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Bush, V. (1945). “As We May Think”. In: R. Packer and K. Jordan, eds. 2002. From Wagner
to Virtual Reality. New York & London: W. W. Norton.
Connerton, P. (1989). How Societies Remember. Cambridge, New York, Port Chester,
Melbourne, Sydney: Cambridge University Press.
Foucault, M. (1998). “Different Spaces”. In Aesthetics, Method, and Epistemology. J. D.
Faubion (Ed.). New York: The New Press, pp.175-185.
Halbwachs, M. (1952). On Collective Memory. Translated by L. A. Coser, 1992. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Hebbert, M. (2005). “The Street as a Locus of Collective Memory”. Environment and
Planning D: Society and Space. Vol. 23, 581-596.
Kansteiner, W. (2002). “Finding Meaning in Memory: A Methodological Critique of
Collective Memory Studies”. History and Theory. Vol. 41, No. 2, 179-197.
Krier, L. (1984). Leon Krier: Houses, Palaces, Cities. D. Pophyrios (Ed.). London :
Architectural Design AD Editions
Lefebvre, H. (1905). Production of Space. Translated by D. Nicholson-Smith, 1991. Oxford:
Wiley Blackwell Publishers.
Leite, J.V. and Zancheti, S.M. (2007). Public Cyberspace: The virtualization of public space
in digital city projects. [online] Em‘body’ing Virtual Architecture: The Third International
Conference of the Arab Society for Computer Aided Architectural Design (ASCAAD 2007).
Alexandria, Egypt, pp. 111-126. Available at: <http://cumincad.scix.net/> [Accessed 1
September 2010].
Locke, J. (1847). An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Philadelphia: Kay &
Troutman.
Nora, P. (1989). “Between Memory and History: Les Lieux de Mémoire”. M. Roudebush
(Trans.). Representations, No. 26, 7-24.
Rossi, A. (1992). The Architecture of the City. D. Ghirardo & Ockman, J. (Trans.).
Cambridge, Massachusetts : MIT Press.
Rossington, M. (2007). Introduction” to Pt. 1, Sec. 2. In M. Rossington & A. Whitehead
(Eds.), Theories of Memory: A Reader (pp. 70-74). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Taylor, S. Z. (1999). “Ongoing Digital Dialogue”. In, M. MacLean & B. H. Davis (Eds.),
Time & Bits: Managing Digital Continuity. Los Angeles: Getty Publications, pp. 65-69.
Yates, F. A. (1969). The Art of Memory. Harmondsworth : Penguin Books.