Is Memory still there?
Is Memory Still There?
A Review of Memory Research
Through the Perspective of Two
Theoretical Traditions: Cognitive
Psychology and Social Constructivism
__________________________________
Bachelor Thesis
Total Number of Characters
(with spaces and footnotes): 63 992
Equal to total number of pages: 28
Ivelina Eneva Yordanova,
Student number 20115080
Supervisor: Carolin Demuth
6th Semesters, Psychology
Bachelor Thesis
Aalborg University
26. May 2014
1
Is Memory still there?
Table of Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 3
Research Question .................................................................................................................... 3
Historical review ........................................................................................................................... 5
History of memory studies is history of memory metaphors ................................................... 5
The origins of metaphors ..................................................................................................... 5
Emergence of the storage metaphor……………….…………….………………………………………………..6
Experiments on memory……………………….…………………………………………………………………….……...9
The Cognitive Psychology´s Approach…………………………………………………………………………………….10
The Social Constructivism………………………………………………………………………………………………………14
The Legacy of L.S. Vygotsky………………………….…………………………………………..……………………….14
The Theoretical Paradigm of Social constructivism……………………………………………………….…...16
Sir Frederic Bartlett´s approach: “It is rather reconstruction”……………………..……….……………19
Critical Evaluation from a Cultural Psychology Perspective…………………………….…………………….21
If Cognitive Psychology cannot do it than who can……..……….……………………………………………23
Why do we remember……………………………………………………………………………………………………....26
What do we gain by taking a functional perspective on memory…………….…………………………27
Final notes…………………….………………………………………………………………………………………….....……29
Process Description……..………………………………………………………………………………………………………..31
Curriculum………………………………………………………………………...………………………………….….……………32
Approved Curriculum……………………………………………………………………………………………………….32
Reference……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…33
1
Is Memory still there?
Abstract
Memory is the most studied and discussed topic among psychologists. After decades of
experiments researchers still lack confidence to define what memory is or to locate it in
the brain. This thesis approaches the problem by reviewing and discussing the existing
literature to answer the following research question: How can we approach memory
scientifically. To answer it I take a close look at two theoretical traditions within
psychology: cognitive psychology and social constructivism, and how they approach
memory. The following discussion concentrates on how these two perspectives reach
understanding on the topic, and how this understanding advances the studies on
memory. While cognitive psychologists restrict memory to borders of the individual´s
mind, and concentrate on its capacity and techniques to enlarge it, social constructivists
go behind the limits of the mind. They take the social and cultural context as essential to
define memory or as they would prefer to say, remembering. Furthermore, social
constructivism stresses that the function memory plays in everyday life suggests a better
way that could lead us to understand and define memory.
2
Is Memory still there?
Introduction
My first project on qualitative methods in psychology was on memory. For the
purposes of the project I interviewed four Danish actors about the way they memorize a
given text to produce a verbatim recall as this is what they have to achieve at the
moment of stage performance. The outcomes of the study showed clearly that despite
that they have to produce a verbatim recall on the stage actors never approach the text
with this intention (Yordanova, 2012, p.13-22). Rather they will start looking for the
character´s motives, perspectives on the world, felling inside of him, etc. For my theory
review I had to find research papers on actor´s memory but everything I found was few
studies, all of them from quantitative cognitive perspective. My interest in the topic
grew not because of the lack of enough research on actor´s memory but rather the
outcomes I reached by interviewing the actors.
The mainstream psychology on memory, predominated by the cognitive
psychology, insists that the only scientific way to approach memory is the quantitative
one where the memory is reduced to outcomes of the study and separated by the
individual experience (Haberlandt, 1994, p.27-29). On the other hand, there are
significant calls for “remapping” memory by taking social constructivist approach, i.e.
remembering is seen as a process of reconstruction within our everyday social context
(Wagoner, 2012, p.1034). Moreover, same psychologists argue that after decades of
studies on memory researchers have lost their subject (Brockmeier, 2010, p.4), and one
of the reason is that memory could be defined in different ways by different researchers.
This vagueness in defining and localizing memory raises this research question:
How can we approach memory scientifically?
I believe this is a crucial question that should be answered by contemporary psychology
because the answer will lead us to revealing finally the mystery behind memory.
To answer my research question I review two widely used nowadays
approaches: cognitive one and within social psychology, social constructivism. The
review of the two theoretical paradigms is centered on how the two paradigms direct the
3
Is Memory still there?
approach to memory. The most significant events and figures are outlined and how they
contribute to advance the memory research. The following discussion, grounded
entirely in the theoretical review, centers on the questions these paradigms should
answer: how finally their approaches allow the studied object-memory- to be defined or
localized; what further new directions to study memory might be considered. Based on
the review and discussion I draw a conclusion that the advantages of social
constructivist approach to memory could be considered as better as it takes the
significance of the social and cultural context of memory.
4
Is Memory still there?
Historical review
History of memory studies is history of memory
metaphors
Through the long history of philosophy and psychology memory remains
intangible for researchers to be defined and localized. What it means to remember and
where it is located are questions that bothered many from ancient times till today. One
of the way to approach this problem has been to compare memory or with other words
to conceptualize the mystery of memory by revealing some of its aspects with the help
of metaphors. Metaphors was helpful device to show some aspects of memory but
questionable to reveal its real nature. At the beginning memory metaphor´s use
advanced the knowledge and Greek philosophers broadly took advantage of it to explain
not just memory nature and function but also to enrich the common knowledge on many
other topics. It is impossible to review history on memory research without revealing
the influence of the metaphors on contemporary memory research and how they
influenced our understanding on memory´s nature and location.
The origins of the metaphors. From the beginning I would like to make it
clear that within the context of psychology memory metaphors refer not to figures of
speech as they are used in the literature but rather to the way they evoke analogy and
resemblance between two objects (Danziger, 2008, p.24). In science metaphor can
reveal new aspects of the studied object, and thus, new ways of approaching it. But also
it might misrepresent features of the object as an obvious truth by forgetting that it is
just a metaphorical way of describing the object. This could be described as a dead
metaphor (Wagoner, 2012, p.1035). In this context the storage metaphor links memory
with a container that holds “traces” of it. This metaphor has different variations through
the centuries but the most important through this review is to explore what it is behind it
and what it tells us about memory.
5
Is Memory still there?
Emergence of the storage metaphor. Tracing a path for my argument that
storage metaphor still dominates cognitive psychology and thus, provides limited
knowledge on memory, I will present a historical review how a storage metaphor
defined the experimental paradigm and its outcomes within cognitive psychology.
From ancient times humans have used external marks and images of inscription to
remember. In context of this, Plato´s view on memory as a wax tablet seems to be the
most influential conceptualization of memory so far (Danziger, 2008, p.28). Plato
argues that our minds are like a block of wax. This block has individual characteristics:
in some individuals it is soft, and in others –hard (ibid, p.28). Any time we perceive
something, we imprint these perceptions on “the wax tablet”, i.e. memory was
considered by Plato as an active process. With this Plato meant that memory is abstract,
inside of the person phenomenon without referring to its specific manifestations but
rather pointing at it as an object with a distinctive nature, and so much less mysterious
and more available for investigation. Plato attributed to memory qualities as truth and
falsehood that implied that “a good memory” allows one to think better and “a poor
memory” to judge wrong (ibid, p.31). This cognitive aspect of his account of memory is
rather implicit but important for the whole idea that Plato advocates.
The image of inscription is employed further by one of Plato´s followers –
Aristotle, who managed by the help of the metaphor to develop a memory model where
besides the inscription process of remembering he attributed to memory a spatial
feature. Remembering occurs as we perceive an object and hold a copy of the object in
the form of an image located in our soul (ibid, p.36). The emphases of the role of image
in Aristotle´s memory model implied spatial dimension of the memory and because of
that memory is part of the imaginative part of the soul. According to him we remember
by “reading” the copied image, i.e. memory is not a verbal process but rather a
storehouse of signs (ibid, p.36). Later after Aristotle, this idea has been implied in the
artifacts of external memory as books. Furthermore, Aristotle distinguished between
memory and recollection: memory is inborn individual ability to memorize while
recollecting of memory is an act of our will to switch from one image to another. The
latter was used by Aristotle to teach his students in dialectical debate how to achieve a
6
Is Memory still there?
good memory for logical arguments (Danziger, 2008, p.68). He states that” when we
hunt up the series we start in our thoughts from the present or some other and from
something either similar or contrary to what we seek, or else from that which is
contiguous with it” (ibid,p.68). This statement was in accordance with the premise he
advocated among his students that “true knowledge has mnemonic properties because it
is logical and orderly” (ibid, p.68). Because of that some scholars believe that Aristotle
was the first associationist. At the time of Aristotle oral poetry, history and legends
were part of ancient Greek traditions. Performers from that time had to memorize a
great amount of texts so finding and elaborating aids like rhythmic strumming of a
musical instrument together with regular variations in intonation, a plethora of
mnemonic devices built into the text, such as a meter, alliteration, rhyming, repetitive
phrasing, formulaic word patterns and soon have been employed but not at all
considered as a mnemonic art. Educational texts on mnemonic were available after the
advent of literacy. The texts consisted of set of practices to improve memory and
referred as “the art of memory” (ibid, 59-60).The premise behind mnemonic practices
was that memory could be influenced by techniques and practices that can improve
one´s capacity to memorize (ibid, p.60). The used mnemonic techniques have been
based on visual imagery, i.e. so called loci-method (ibid,p.61). The invention of
mnemonic method revealed clearly that people did not use them spontaneously but
rather they had to be taught how to use it. Implicitly it had been distinguished between
natural and artificial memory, i.e. some forms of remembering are natural and others are
not. Artificial memory relies on explicit procedures to improve its capacity for
information. It depends on the natural memory that is individual ability not deliberate to
remember. To explain the artificial memory classical Latin sources used inscription
metaphor, i.e. the idea that remembering refers to inner writing and reading of the
memorized information (ibid, p.68).
At medieval time religious texts have been popular and widely spread. So a
good memory has served to Christian ethical values, and its goal has been to make the
texts (particularly the religious ones) an essential part of the reader. A memory
metaphor of digestion at this time depicted the idea that remembering a text was like a
fusion between the text and reader´s self (ibid, p.72).To accomplish this task books
7
Is Memory still there?
from that period used to be richly illustrated with pictures of the text, decoration of
margins, using special shrift for capital letters, etc. All these should facilitate memory
for the text in order to take over reader´s life (Danziger, 2008, p.72). This highly
sophisticated practice has been interrupted by discovering of printing in the
Enlightenment period. This event marked the expansion of external memory as books,
libraries, etc. Other demand on memory from that period became obvious, i.e. demand
for accuracy of recalled information. Trade expanded and people dealing with business
had to memorize accurately many things vital for surviving and developing their
businesses. From this period dates “Memoria Technica” by Richard Grey, a book that
was frequently reprinted between 1730 and 1880 and has taught the reader of
techniques on accuracy and precision for remembered information (ibid, p.78).
Through the whole history of development of knowledge on memory storehouse
metaphor has been used in different ways to depict some aspects of memory but
memory itself has not been scientifically studied. Still the usage of memory served the
idea to reveal the purpose of memory in people´s everyday practice. In sum, referring to
rhetorical context memory had to provide the individual with effective arguments (ibid,
p.87). In a dialectical context, mnemonic order reflected logical order. Monastic
memory served the virtuous life. Many modern interpretations of memory serve the idea
of preserving factual information. Given this set of arguments one can draw a
conclusion that the persistence of storage metaphor stayed firm as representative of
memory. Some variants of the storage metaphor employed concrete images of
containers like houses, rooms, palaces and halls (ibid, p.26). In the late 20 century the
invention of computer marked the reinforcement of the storage metaphor in a form of a
digital computer, and it highlighted the idea that memory operates to process
information through encoding, storage and retrieval (ibid,p.25). Thus, using the image
of how computer processes information became a model for human memory.
8
Is Memory still there?
Experiments on memory
In the nineteenth century the belief that the mystery surrounding memory could
be revealed by making it a scientific category grew to the point that Ebbinghaus
conducted the first experiment on memory. The method was simple but still carefully
designed and controlled to prove Ebbinghaus` ideas and beliefs what memory is and
how to investigate it.
As a beginning it is important to put forward some remarks concerning
Ebbingaus´ understanding on the topic of memory and experiment. First of all,
Ebbingaus believed that memory was a pure retention and this was what we have to
investigate. He was not interested in an actual experience of memory but rather those
aspects of memory that were measurable (Danziger, 2008, p.128). According to
Ebbinghaus retention was suitable for scientific investigation because it was a conscious
experience and thus, measurable and reproductive. To Ebbinghaus reproduction meant a
match between external input (in his case memorized list of nonsense syllables) and the
same list recalled. For him this premise meant that both, the input and output, were
quantified (ibid, p.128). With this the constructed experimental paradigm was defined
by reducing the studied phenomenon in order to fit the method of measure and the
experimental paradigm (ibid, p.129). Another aspect of Ebbinghaus´ understanding was
that he believed that memory was dependable on a kind of work, memorizing. He stated
that “reproduction and memory are related rather like work and energy” (ibid, p.129).
So the work invested in memorizing the list with syllables was measured with counting
the attempts of memorizing the list with the syllables to produce a verbatim recall (ibid,
p.129). All these were reflected by the design of his experiment. Ebbinghaus prepared
list with pronounceable meaningless three-letter syllables that he repeatedly memorized.
He tested himself on the rate of they were forgotten (“the curve of forgetting”), how
well they were remembered as a function of their position on the list (“ the serial
position effect”), the time to relearn them after being forgotten (“ saving”),etc
(Wagoner, 2012,p.1038). Thus, Ebbinghaus constructed an experimental situation for
studying memory that differed from the everyday situation where memory naturally
functions, i.e. an artificial memory (Danziger, p.127). Ebbinghaus` approach was
9
Is Memory still there?
especially appealing to the education because it perceived memory as work of
reproduction. At that time learning meant accurately reproduction of the learned
information (Danziger, 2008, p.130). Later on Ebbinghaus´ method was subject of
standardization. It has been recognized the separate roles of subject of the study and the
experimenter. One of the consequences was that it made it easier to ignore the
experiential side of remembering. Another one was that subjects were called “naïve
subjects”, i.e. subject were not aware of the purpose of the experiment. Thus, their
individual involvement and influence on the results was eliminated (ibid, p.131).
Years later Sir Frederic Bartlett objected Ebbingahus approach to study memory
out of its everyday context. According to him by memorizing nonsense syllables
nothing might be revealed how memory functions in our everyday life (Bartlett, 1932,
p.4).
The outlined events within philosophy and later psychology were a fundament for
an emergence of the discipline of cognitive psychology. Other factors that will be
reviewed in the following paragraphs also facilitated its development. To give further
arguments for the limits of cognitive paradigm in studying memory basic ontological
and epistemological considerations within cognitive psychology will be reviewed.
The cognitive psychology´s approach
As I outlined the main prerequisites that grounded cognitive psychology
(metaphorical approach to mind and Ebbinghaus´ experiments) I will continue with
giving an account of cognitive psychology and its main principles that defined further
how we have to approach the studied phenomena.
Cognitive psychology developed as an independent discipline between 1940 and
1960 as a response of behaviorism that before 1940 overtook the psychological thought.
By ignoring mind as a reliable scientific category behaviorists represented human
behavior as Stimuli-Result model. In contrast to this cognitive psychology drew
attention on the mind, mental structures and how they produce knowledge. Thus, the
centre of its studies and experiments became human processing information manifested
10
Is Memory still there?
by attention, pattern recognition, learning, memory, language, processing, problem
solving, and reasoning. Because information processing is based on knowledge,
knowledge structures became prime goals of investigation (Haberland, 1994, p.1).
Structured to fit the controlled experiments, these knowledge structures became
“visible” for the cognitive psychologists through participants´ performance in the
experiments. This view shaped further the cognitive experimental paradigm which roots
could be traced back to Ebbinghaus and his experimental model to study memory.
Cognitive psychology was influenced by other disciplines as philosophy,
experimental psychology, linguistic, and computer science (ibid, p.4).A common
ground for all of them was the interest in knowledge and its structures. From ancient
times philosophers speculated on knowledge trying to observe and define it. Plato
represented the tradition of nativism claiming that our knowledge is innate and it can be
recollected (ibid, p.9). Renee Descartes (1596-1650) was rationalist and interested in
physic, geometry, physiology, and language. After studying for long time the sources of
knowledge he came to the conclusion that it is not the senses but rather human reason as
a product of mind is the key to knowledge. In agreement with this statement he
introduce the famous phrase “I think therefore I am” (ibid, p.4-5). Descartes first
introduce the idea of mental representation that is a symbol of a real object as well
thoughts and ideas. This notion was further developed by J.A.Fodor who suggested the
idea of abstract language of thought to understand the problems of problem solving,
perception and languages (ibid, p.6). David Hume (1711-1776) was another philosopher
with an impact on development of cognitive psychology. He was empiricist and stated
that knowledge is obtained through our senses and mind stores this experience by
associations and comparisons (ibid, p.8). Immanuel Kant combined the rationalist and
empiricist approaches and stated that human beings posses mental structures,
dimensions, categories and schemas which purpose is to organize the arriving
knowledge through senses (ibid, p.7-8). The philosophers´ ideas on knowledge
contributed to the development of cognitive psychology by setting questions on the
sources of knowledge and how these sources could be studied. Ontologically they
shaped the object of study-mind, and thus, further defined the epistemological frame of
cognitive psychology.
11
Is Memory still there?
Several experimental paradigms influenced the cognitive epistemology:
psychophysics, structuralism, behaviorism, Gestalt psychology, the research on
information processes (Haberlandt, 1997, p.18). Psychophysics introduced the
measurement methods that were employed to study memory. Structuralism impacted
cognitive psychology with its idea of associonism especially on semantic knowledge in
memory. The studies of Gestalt psychology on perception were highly welcomed as
they found implication on studied by cognitive psychology attention and pattern
recognition. Researchers on information processes and cognitive psychology shared the
same interest on capacity of mental processes and accuracy of their performance (ibid,
p.19). All authors mentioned above left their mark on cognitive experimental paradigm
to study subject´s performance as reflection of the mental structures.
One of the outcomes of all these influences was that cognitive psychology
considered its experimental subjects (human beings and animals) as container with
input and output (Edwards, 1997, p.28). With this cognitive psychology showed little
success to distance from the behavioristics model of S-R although it replaced nonmentalism with mentalism (ibid, p.28). Moreover, mental structures became so
independent from their culture, context and relation with other psychological
phenomena that they were not considered as essential for understanding the mind (ibid,
p.28). This tradition was pioneered by Ebbinghaus who reduced memory to pure
retention. With this cognitive psychology still missed a model to explain how process of
information exactly functions. Instead to look for this model in reality, cognitive
psychology adopted the computer metaphor as a model of cognitive processes (ibid,
p.29-30). Basically cognitive psychology assumed that like computers cognition
manipulates information as a symbol by accepting input, processing it, and producing
an output. Furthermore, like the computers, mind processes information fast and
accurately (Matlin, 2013. p.18).
One of the consequences of this approach is that researchers became
concerned with the capacity of cognitive processes and particularly memory. Inspired
by computer metaphor, memory has been considered as three steps process
compromising encoding, storage and retrieval. The capacity/accuracy preoccupation
12
Is Memory still there?
drove researchers in the field in a direction of to study how the encoded information can
be retrieved successfully. As a result majority of experiments proposed models for
illuminating all factors and influences that mediate better capacity and accuracy of
remembered (retrieved) information. To achieve significant outcomes experiments were
standardized (Haberlandt, 1997, p.28). They became systematic, i.e. the studied
cognition was depicted as variations of the independent variables that result in changes
of dependent variables. To emerge the studied variable it was important for the
researchers to neutralize the factors that influence the performance of the dependent
variables, e.g. confounding variables (ibid, p.29). The point was that every influence
different from the dependent variables has been considered as influencing the results in
sense that they are not representative for the studied cognitive phenomenon.
Another consequence of applying the computer metaphor on the research
design was the way researchers collected data. There are three approaches within
cognitive psychology to collect data: phenomenological, neuroscientists, and
information processing (ibid, p.29). The phenomenological approach collects subjects´
experiences of the implied stimuli. The neuroscientists´ approach collects
electrophysiological changes produced by the stimuli. The chronometric approach is
popular when the information processing should be studied (ibid, p.30). All of them are
used for quantitative methods, i.e. the data is reduced to measurable units and subjects´
experience of stimuli is ignored. The significance of outcomes is evaluated by other
measures subject of the statistical tests.
The research question of the thesis implies that one of the aims is to put
forward arguments for a critical discussion on how memory has been approach by two
theoretical traditions within psychology: cognitive tradition and social constructivism
tradition. Thus, I will continue with outlining the basic characteristics of social
constructivism and how it approaches memory. The theoretical paradigm has several
influences but the most important one is of the work of Lev Symonovich Vygotsky.
13
Is Memory still there?
The Social Constructivism
The Legacy of Lev S. Vygotsky
An early inspiration for the development of social constructivism comes from
Vygotsky and his work on development of higher mental functions. His insights have
been broadly accepted in late 1970 with translation of his books into English. Here I
will outline the basic ideas and concepts that contribute to establishing of social
constructivism and how it studies remembering.
At his life time the existing models of approaching and studying the child
development have been based on the experiments with plants and animals (mostly
apes). Vygotsky cites particularly Wolfgang Kohler`s experiments on practical
intelligence with apes where he found an analogy between apes and children´s behavior.
This insight turned to be a guide further in the experiments with children (Vygotsky,
1979, p.20-21). The, so called, animal or botanical experimental paradigm had a
shortcoming according to Vygotsky that it ignored the speech as an agency in maturing
of mental functions (ibid, p.21-22; Edwards, 1997, p.43-44).Contrary to this, Vygotsky
argues that when speech and use of signs are incorporate into the child´s activity, his
actions are transformed and organized into new forms of behavior (Vygotsky, 1979,
p.25). Signs here refer to self-generated or artificial stimuli that allow the human mental
functions to overcome the limits of biological systems (ibid, p.39). According to
Vygotsky there are two kinds of mental functions (in the same way he refers to memory
as two kinds of memory) that occur in human development: natural and mediated.
Cultural tools and signs, and especially language transform the natural functions into
mediated ones (Edwards, 1997, p.43). This transformation happens within three stages
which culminate in internalizing of the external signs into internal, i.e. the process of
internalization that is an internal reconstruction of an external processes (Vygotsky,
1979, p. 56). These stages are: 1) a process initially representing external activity is
being reconstructed; 2) a transformation of interpersonal process into intrapersonal;
3) the process of transformation is a result of a repeating of developmental events (ibid,
p.56-57). Two concepts in the process of internalization should be outlined as
14
Is Memory still there?
fundamental for cultural-historical theory and later social constructivistics approachesculture and social origins of mental functions (Wertsh & Tulviste, 1994,p. 548,
Vygotsky, 1979, p.57). Vygotsky explains the social origins of mental functions by
arguing that mental functions appear in child development twice: first, on the
interpersonal level between the child and adults, and second, on intrapersonal level, i.e.
inside of the child (Vygotsky, 1979, p.57; Valsiner et al.2012, p.60). In other words, the
study of mental functions should starts not from inside but rather from outside of the
child by approaching cultural and social context of the child (Wertsch & Tulviste, 1992,
p.548; van der Veer, 2012, p.60-61). Here I will stop only to mention that similar
approaches were suggested by Maurice Hallbwachs who argued that memory origins
within a social framework (Wertsch, 2002, p. 67), and Bartlett who stated that the social
context defines how we remember (Bartlett, 1932, p.208). Although Vygotsky never
met them the similarity in ideas are obvious. Vygotsky goes further and deeper into the
topic by setting an emphasis on the process of transformation of natural functions into
mediated by giving account of the natural history of signs. The reason for this is that the
signs bear these cultural and social characteristics that define the context as such. The
essence of the process of internalization is that the structure of the mental functions is
changed, the mental functions become indirect (mediated) in a way that they are
structured not as a direct stimulation from the environment but stimuli and results are
linked with each other through a sign (a sign operation) (Vygotsky, 1979, p.45).
To demonstrate this Vygotsky and his co-workers conducted several
experiments on memory. They set a task for children, separated into four age groups, to
memorize words. To make the task easier they provided the children with pictures
which purpose clearly has been to help them to recall the words. The results and later on
the analysis of the outcomes showed that at early age children do not benefit from the
pictures as helpers to recall the words. The older children between 8-9 years used the
cards as external stimuli and their effectiveness on children´s performance was
significant. Adults perform better too but Vygotsky attributes their excellent
performance to a process of internalization, i.e. the external sign is transformed into
internal and used by adults as a means of remembering (ibid, p.45). Furthermore,
Vygotsky finds as an interesting fact that memory plays different role in younger and
15
Is Memory still there?
older children. He demonstrates that by giving an account of three examples: how
children define concepts; the development of visual concepts in very young children;
and analysis of word meaning (Vygotsky, 1979, p.50-51). Generally, Vygotsky draws a
conclusion that memory in all these three cases defines the cognitive development in
early ages. Later on in older children memory is “logicalized” to the point that “to recall
for the children means to think”, and for adults to remember means that they have to
build up and later find logical relations (ibid, p.50-51). In sum, people remember with
the help of signs and they make effort to establish these signs to mediate remembering
(ibid, p.51). Vygotsky´s approach to study higher mental process had a big influence on
psychology, and the most significantly inspired and defined the basic principles of
social constructivism as an approach of studying social phenomena. In the following
paragraphs section I will outline briefly the social constructivism paradigm in order to
make better understood the basic approach of studying social phenomena and
particularly memory.
The Theoretical Paradigm of Social Constructivism
Social constructivism (SC) as a theoretical paradigm within social psychology
focuses on the interactions formed within the cultural and social context between
individuals (Rønn, 2006, p.58). SC sees the reality through analysis of the constructed
relations and interactions between the observer and the observed like world-individual
or individual- individual. The person is considered as a network of interactions where
the context in which these interactions have been formed directs their interpretation and
development of knowledge as a consequence. From this follows that knowledge that is
constructed but not discovered or created, must be applied and used only within the
actual context of its emergence (ibid, p.58). Here knowledge seen as a product of
human interactions is referred to meaning-making process (Bruner, 1990, p.5).
SC has experienced the influence of philosophy, sociology and linguistic. The
impact of sociology comes from Mead and his book “Mind, Self, and Society”. There he
discusses the construction of identity through everyday social interactions (Burr, 1995,
p.9-10). Also the impact of ethnomethodology is seen in the way it approaches the
16
Is Memory still there?
social phenomena, tries to understand how people construct their social life and make
sense of it (Burr, 1995, p.10). Berger and Luckmann´s book “The social Construction of
Reality” on the other hand, discusses people´s approach to social life by creating in
interactions social phenomena and sustaining them (ibid, p.10). According to Burr there
are several characteristics that identify SC across social psychology. 1) SC opposes the
idea of taken-for-granted knowledge, and appears opposed to positivism and empiricism
that knowledge is objective and discovered by a direct observation (ibid, p.3). 2)
Historical and cultural context of knowledge. It means that all concepts and categories
we apply to understand knowledge reflect the cultural traditions, views on the world and
history as well (ibid, p.4). 3) Social construction of knowledge as a characteristic of SC
refers to the fact that within out social interactions we construct knowledge and thus,
the notion of truth for example is not discovered by a direct observation but rather is a
product of a social interactions (ibid, p.4). 4) The sustained knowledge constructed
within people´s interactions is followed by some patterns of social actions, and at the
same time ignores others (ibid, p.4).
Several important consequences follow from this. First of all, SC doesn´t see the
human nature as containing “essences” inside the people that determine their lives (ibid,
p.5). Second, SC denies the existence of so called objective facts because all knowledge
on world is constructed from particular point of view, culturally and historically defined
(ibid, p.6). Third, SC acknowledges the role of language in acquiring the socially
constructed concepts and categories, and thus, reproducing them within society (ibid,
p.6-7). Carsten Rønn describes several schools within SC (Rønn, 2006p.65-68).
1) Logical or cognitive constructivism. This school takes up knowledge as a result of
processing information in order to construct the inside and outside world of individual.
2) Cosmic constructivism. This school is identified with the idea that reality is
connected to biological and neurophysiologic nature of people. It means that the
individual and the world do not exist for each other but rather as entity (ibid, p.66).
17
Is Memory still there?
3) Radical constructivism. Theoreticians of this school find that by including human
physiology we achieve better understanding of the social world and reality. The
construction of this world happens through people´s imagery (Rønn, 2006, p.67-68).
4) Postmodern constructionism. Central role within this school plays Kenneth Gergen
who emphasizes the linguistic nature of our social interactions (ibid, p.70). In his book
“An Introduction to Social Construction” he puts forward his arguments for developing
this school within SC. According Gergen the basic idea of social constructionism is
simple and could be expressed with the phrase “Together we construct our worlds”
(Gergen, 2009, p.2-3). It really sounds simple and easy to approach the world critically.
But Gergen warns us that by taking this perspective we have to revisit our views on the
world and everything we have been taught about the world. Even reality is a result of
the talks we participate in because through our communication we construct this reality.
Thus, language plays a significant role in constructing this reality (ibid, p.3-4).
5) Late modern constructionism. It is related to the social science and studies people as
actors in the late society. One representative is Anthony Giddens. His structuration
theory studies the relation of individuals and their environment (Rønn, 2006, p.70-72).
6) System theoretical constructivism. A central role plays Niklas Luhmann and his
system theory. People are considered as a part of a system where people construct each
other (ibid, p.72)
From the point of this general review on the SC principles and schools I will
address the following paragraphs to how SC approaches memory or better remembering
as SC prefers to refer to this subject. And for this I will continue with Sir Frederic
Bartlett (1886-1969) and his work on remembering. Although Neisser considers
Bartlett´s work as fundamental for the “cognitive revolution” in psychology, his work
reflects rather SC ideas and principles of approaching the studied phenomenon (Shotter,
1990, p.121).
18
Is Memory still there?
Sir Frederic Bartlett’s approach: “it´s rather
reconstruction”
Several distinctive assumptions should be outlined about mind that directed
Bartlett in his experiments and shaping of his theory on remembering. First of all
Bartlett conceived mind as a multidimensional phenomenon where individual, social
and biological environment played a role to define cognition. Thus, mind functions as a
whole and the differences between its parts perceiving, thinking, remembering,
recognizing and imagining, differ in degree and not in nature (Wagoner, 2012, p.1040).
Second, Bartlett considered the mental processes as active rather static guided by
making effort after meaning (Bartlett, 1932. p.227).The third aspects refers to feelings
and attitudes in a way that people reconstruct their memories based on their feelings and
attitudes. This results from observations in his experiments (Wagoner, 2012, p.1040).
Bartlett´s objection against Ebbinghaus experiments was that everyday
memory doesn´t operate with nonsense syllables but rather situated in the social life and
essentially connected to the social images and practices. He explicitly opposed the idea
of artificial memory as a subject of scientific experiment. Bartlett designed experiments
reflecting this idea. First of all, the materials that used to be studied and remembered by
his subjects were meaningful texts or images. With this he explicitly avoided to create
an artificial situation for remembering as his main purpose was to study the everyday
memory and its qualitative changes. Thus, the method of repeated reproductions (stories
and pictures) was satisfactory approach to observe and study the phenomenon in
everyday environment. The most discussed method of repeated reproductions has been
the reproduction of a North-American folk story “The War of the Ghost” that tells a
story of two Indians. One of them is called to war, and another –refuses to follow the
war call. At the end of the story the warrior dies. Subjects of his experiments were
mostly educated English people from Cambridge and for them this North-American
Indian story was strange, unfamiliar and senseless. After some days of delay they had to
recall repeatedly the story and the result looked as traditional English stories where
“hunting seals” became “fishing”, “canoes” are changed to “boats”, i.e. the unfamiliar
19
Is Memory still there?
elements of the story were rationalized into familiar ones and the structure of the story
reorganized (Wagoner, 2012, p.1041). According to Bartlett these qualitative changes
reflected the everyday activity of remembering like “making unfamiliar familiar”.
(Bartlett, 1932, p.89)
Several generalizations by Bartlett on the method of repeated reproductions and
their outcomes deserve to be outlined. First of all, Bartlett was explicitly confident that
remembering was not a precise, verbatim recall but rather reconstruction of the past.
Bartlett observed that while subjects of his experiments were reconstructing the story,
the form of the story persisted through every reconstruction but style, rhythm and
precise mode of construction were changed (ibid, p.83). He observed as well that in
long-distance remembering through subject´s attitude, the story became more elaborated
and reconstructive (ibid, p.93). Bartlett explained this with the process of
rationalization, i.e. a process of changing the story in a way that it becomes rational and
easily manipulated (ibid, p.84). According to Bartlett the process was guided by
subjects´ attitudes, and by nature was unwitting, reflecting their tendency to turn
something unfamiliar into familiar (ibid, p.94). So names, phrases and events are
changed to something meaningful and easily remembered. Bartlett comes to the
conclusion that remembering “ is an imaginative reconstruction or construction, built
out of the relation of our attitude towards a whole active mass of organized past
reactions or experience, and to a little outstanding detail which commonly appears in
image or language form” (ibid, p.213). He emphasized that remembering is not about
an exact reproduction. Guided by his attitude a person turns upon his own “schemata”
(refers to active organization of past) to reconstruct the past.
Schemata as a notion to underline the process of remembering in Bartlett´s
writings, has a vague meaning and Marry Northway has outlined four definitions of it
(Northway, 1940, p.316-325). But Bartlett turns frequently to it to explain the
remembering. Although he failed to give final completed definition, he stressed that it is
not static as schemata are built of common materials that are in constant change
(Bartlett, 1932, p.214). As mentioned earlier, Vygotsky also addresses memory in his
20
Is Memory still there?
work and there are a similarity in the approaches and drawn conclusions in both
researchers.
Critical Evaluation from a Cultural Psychology
Perspective
Many SCs are considered cultural psychologists too. Why so? To answer this
and give a shape of arguments for a further discussion, I will briefly introduce Cultural
Psychology and how it approaches remembering.
By definition Cultural Psychology studies meaning making and activities in
context of their emergence. Cultural Psychology aims to explain how cultural
constructions as traditions and social practices organize change and express human
behavior (Keller, 2012, p.119). From this follow three important consequences. First,
the emphasis is on the everyday lives and social activities related to expressing and
developing culture. Or in other words a cultural psychologist studies how individuals
develop meaning making systems (ibid, p.119). Second, the definition of Cultural
Psychology implies that there are dialogical relationships between the individual and
culture. Within this dialogue individuals are considered as active participants in creating
and passing further culture (ibid, p.119). Third, the focus on meaning making systems
directs the research toward language and its constructive role in them (ibid, p.119).
With this short presentation of cultural psychology I would like to launch the discussion
that will follow in the next paragraphs. Grounded in the presented review, I will discuss
several important aspects on the research on memory/remembering and what have been
achieved so far. Later on, I will outline further directions for studying remembering.
Jerome Bruner argues in his book “Acts of meaning” that what happened with
the cognitive revolution in 1950´ was dehumanizing the very concept of mind (Bruner,
1990, p.1). He explains this with the shift of the focus of cognitive psychology from
meaning as a central concept behind mental processes to information that is processed
through our mental activity (ibid, p.4). According to Bruner the reason for this shift was
the introduction of computer metaphor that is another version of the store metaphor.
21
Is Memory still there?
What did it mean for the cognitive psychology and its subject of research? It meant that
the key concepts, and the experimental paradigm examining these concepts, changed,
i.e. it meant that not meaning but rather message and its transformation became object
of an research. And as a consequence within the cognitive research line, cognitive
processes have been fractured and compared with the computer programs (Bruner,
1990, p.6). Scientists adopted even the computer vocabulary and started talking about
“virtual minds” and “artificial intelligence” (ibid, p.6). Moreover, an additional
artificial term, “architecture of cognition”, expressed the cognitive view how memory is
structured. According to this concept the cognition is seen as a set of grammar-like
hierarchy that is structured to accept, reject or combine input (ibid, p.7). In the case of
memory cognitive psychology succeeded in fracturing it into parts and structuring them
in a way that the information is encoded, stored and retrieved (Matlin, 2012, p.126127). Two important consequences for memory research within cognitive psychology
followed from that. Researchers became obsessed with finding what the capacity of
memory is. This provoked many studies and in 1956 George Miller found “The Magical
Number Seven”, i.e. our short term memory holds approximately seven chunks (a
memory unit of several elements that are closely related with each other) (Matlin,2012,
p.101). Although the finding challenged the behaviorists who at that time influenced
greatly the psychological thought, the following experiments have been mostly limited
to study memory capacity.
The second consequence is that memory has been fractured into several
components that have been organized into models represented as a short-term memory
and long-term memory. Every model has been studied from the perspective to improve
memory capacity. The most influential model is Baddeley´s model of working memory
(ibid, p. 108). According to the model the short-term memory compromises three
components: visuospatial sketchpad, episodic buffer, phonological loop. All of them
controlled by a central executive (ibid, p.108). And again the following experiments on
short-term memory concentrated on the ways to enhance memory capacity. On the other
hand, long-term memory has larger capacity. To reveal some of its aspects researchers
studied people with extraordinary ability to memorize like waiters, chess-players,
actors, etc. (Ericsson, 2008, p.809-811). After many years of research on memory22
Is Memory still there?
experts, K.A. Ericsson comes to conclude that to enhance a good memory one needs a
lot of practice in his area of interest (Ericsson & Chase, 1988, p.3-4).
To sum up, the dark shadow of store metaphors influenced the researchers´
interests (capacity of memory) and possible interpretations to enhance memory
capacity. This lasted for decades and it seems that cognitive research did not move on
any further. This provoked Ulrick Neisser to say that the research has “very little to
show for a hundred years of effort”. According to him the achievements of cognitive
psychology on memory so far are facts known to children (Danziger, 2009, p.144).
Another researcher J.J. Jenkins admits to having been misled by the memory metaphor
“that limited the studies to assumptions proposed by this metaphor” (ibid, p.144).
Considering the long-term memory, it has been recognized that depending on
the type of stored information memory could be labeled as semantic, episodic and
procedural (Matlin, 2013, p. 127). The argument behind this distinction is that different
biological systems are responsible for different kinds of memory. But locating these
systems so far is still questionable (Danziger, 2009, p.157). Another aspect of
experiments on memory is that cognitive psychology could not overcome the
inheritance left by Ebbinghaus defined as a verbatim recall, i.e. the output if the
experiments have been evaluated as a percentage of the memorized items on the
background of the all items. At the same time the subject´s experience have been
excluded from the reporting of the results and following discussions of the experiments
(Danziger, 2009, p.172). Despite Bartlett´s objections Ebbinghaus´ experimental
paradigm still predominates the memory research.
If cognitive psychology cannot do it than who can
Let´s go back again to Bruner who formulated three reasons for including
culture as a central concept in psychology. First of all, culture as context of human
beings has a constructive role. Through the symbolic system of culture people construct
meanings and thus, they become a reflection of their culture (Bruner, 1990, p.11). The
second reason is that people live in the context of culture where the processes of
meaning making and meaning-using occur. The third reason, Bruner names as folk
23
Is Memory still there?
psychology (a term he uses synonymously for cultural psychology) that includes nature,
reasons and consequences of all intentional states that we bear when we act or talk, etc.
(Bruner,1990 ,p.13-14).
In the course of the concept of folk or cultural psychology that Bruner defends
emergence of collective memory becomes a central concept in attempt researchers to
define the process of remembering. It is very important to be mentioned that within SC
paradigm memory is not just a static subject of study but a dynamic process. That is
why the discussion is about remembering as Bartlett suggested many years ago.
However, James Wertsch argues that one of the ways to escape the confusion left by the
cognitive psychology in defining memory is to take another approach that he defines as
a functional dualism. The approach suggested by Wertsch is to start studying memory
by examining its function it plays in people´s life and activities (Wertsch, 2002, p.31).
He suggests two functions to be considered: the necessity of memory to provide us with
accuracy for the past events, and memory function to provide us with a decent past that
will be a ground for the individual and group identity (ibid, p.31). Wertsch outlines that
accuracy of memory is a concern for cognitive psychology too but here he refers to it to
underline its importance constructing a decent past and consequently individual and
group identity (ibid, p.34). Studying collective memory means that remembering is a
process that goes outside of the single person and means a reconstruction of the past
within the context of the whole culture and society (ibid, p.35).
Derek Edwards stresses on the fact that the Vygotskian approach to mind gives
much more perspectives on the social and cultural aspects of mind then cognitive
psychology (Edwards, 1997, p.44). One of the achievements of Vygotsky is that he did
not see memory as an independent function of mind but rather working in collaboration
with other mental functions to build up the mind (Vygotsky, 1979, p.35). Vygotsky also
takes the function as perspective to examine the development of the higher mental
functions. By reversing its function within the whole process of development memory
becomes from natural to mediated (ibid, p.35). Mediated nature of the adult´s memory
reflects the process of meaning construction where an outside object becomes a
meaningful, i.e. using Vygotskian terminology it becomes a sign. The role of the sign is
24
Is Memory still there?
to master and control our behavior from outside (Wagoner, 2012, p.1050), and cultural
and social context provide us with these signs.
In his article “Remapping Memory” Jens Brockmeier (cultural psychologist)
identifies four fields of research which could provide us with a significant insight to
define memory. The main concern of the author is to outline the lost track toward
finding what memory actually is (Brockmeier, 2010, p.11). The first field he analyses is
the social and cultural one. It refers to human and social science, and is directed by
interests in social and cultural construction and organization of memory (ibid, p.13). On
the background of the drastic changes that remapped the political card of the world
recently, many societies had to re-establish and re-evaluate their past by facing a simple
question: how to remember the past (ibid, p.11-12). Beneath the surface of societies we
have been observed practices and processes that reshaped the collective memories of
whole nations (ibid, p.12). Researchers make it clear that the dynamic of these practices
confirms Bartlett´s insight that memory is a process of reconstruction, and thus
Brockmeier comes to conclude that even if we still miss a definition for memory, it
seems that it is formed and defined by social practices (ibid, p.13). To find out how to
define memory Brockmeier suggests that we should study: 1) the context in which
memory is embodied; 2) the way memory is constructed that includes all narrative
practices, rituals, etc.; 3) and how these constructions change their role over time (ibid,
p. 13).
The next field is media and technology. Brockmeier refers to them not to
underline the computer metaphor but rather to outline the importance of computers and
other media devices to construct memory. With the possibilities they provide us to
create documents, search the net for valuable information they easily become mediators
in constructing our realities and memory (ibid, p.14-17).
The third field that boots the memory research is literary and artistic. The
importance of this field according to Brockmeier could be found in autobiographical
narrative and modern idea of self (ibid, p.19). By studying the artists´ approach to
create, develop and perform stories, researchers have found tendency among writers,
e.g. Samuel Becket, to see the past as reconstructed (ibid, p.19).
25
Is Memory still there?
The last field discussed by Brockmeier is the biological and neuroscience. It is a
subject of interest because some of the latest findings confirm the mediated
(constructed) process of remembering. Researchers failed to localize the biological
substratum of remembering. Rather they observed that the process of perceiving and
remembering activate the same neuronal circuits (Brockmeier, 2010, p.20). This comes
to say that the idea of present and past seems “alien” to the brain but rather constructed
through our social practices (ibid, p. 20-21). Furthermore, Brockmeier argues that there
is no biological evidence in the brain for adopted by cognitive psychology the memory
terms as encoding, storage and retrieval, STM and LTM (ibid, p.24), and it seems that
the concept of memory within neuroscience is losing its subject (ibid, p.25).
On the ground of these arguments from the four fields of psychology
Brockmeier comes to conclusion that in all four fields remembering and forgetting are
viewed as social and cultural practices carried out by people (ibid, p.27) and researchers
have to realize that there are alternative models of the storage metaphor for memory
(ibid, p.28).
Why do we remember?
Discussing remembering we cannot ignore the social functions it plays and the
relations it is involved in (Brockmeier, 2009, p.21). The reason is simple: we cannot
study any phenomenon by ignoring its origins or context of existence. In line with
Vygotsky and Bartlett, to study remembering and the function it plays in people´s life
means to observe and consider the role of the cultural frames that remembering occurs
within. Halbwachs (Halbwachs, 1980, p.22-24) gave a very detailed account of the
constitutive role cultural and social frames play to shape individual memory. According
to him the cultural frames definitely influence the organization of memory and thus, he
sees the inherited cognitive structures within a social group culturally defined.
According to some other authors like Gross (Brockmeier, 2009, p.19) one of the
functions of memory is to remind us about the moral and values of our cultures. Similar
point of view on memory had the medieval church. Another function memory plays is
to define our existence in time and history (ibid, p.19).
26
Is Memory still there?
What do we gain by taking a functional perspective on
memory?
Generally speaking the cognitive perspective suggested us to believe that what
have been stored with the right technique might be retrieved (Matlin, 2013, p.172-183).
This perspective on memory turned into objective subject for the cognitive experiments
by reducing it in a way that the individual experience of remembering was totally
dismissed from the experimental paradigm. In other words reducing of memory ended
up with a crisis of memory that referred to its context and process of occurring
(Brockmeier, 2009, p.20). As a consequence this same subject became so elusive to the
point difficult to be defined. On the other hand, social constructivism suggests another
approach. First, it is remembering rather memory, and second, we should study it by
examining the function it plays in people´s daily life. It means that cultural and social
context are the frames of the memory rather our skin (ibid, p.20). As a consequence
defining memory becomes possible, i.e. remembering is a process of reconstruction
shaped by the cultural and social context (ibid, p.21). It seems that the later approach
gives not just better opportunity to define memory but also on the ground of this, better
possibilities to study remembering.
In the present thesis so far I have given an account of two theoretical traditions
of studying memory: cognitive psychology and within social psychology I have
reviewed the social constructivism and some of its schools. The later tradition was
reinforced by short introduction of cultural psychology as it gives rise of some aspects
of culture common for the SC as cultural context and meaning making. All these were
arguments to outline which approach to memory/remembering is scientific and gives
better access to study it.
In a line with Brockmeier, Edwards, Vygotsky and Bartlett, I come to conclude
that remembering is a movement between the past and present, here and there, i.e. it is a
process where constructing of the past happens in the present, and this process has a
particular function (ibid, p.18). So far social psychologists are talking for two main
27
Is Memory still there?
functions: to assure the individuals´ cultural sense of belonging and its identity that is a
ground for collective memory (Brockmeier, 2009, p.18-19).
From this follows that we cannot study mind fractured in components like
attention, perception, memory, etc. because there is a real danger demonstrated already
by the cognitive experiments to lose its object of investigation. As Vygotsky
emphasized memory plays a different role across the ages: if for the young child to
think means to remember, for the adults to remember means to think (Vygotsky, 1979,
43). In the context of this social psychology and particularly social constructivism
perceive culture as an environment for remembering that defines “effort after meaning”
and “making unfamiliar familiar” if we have to use Bartlett´s terminology.
The discussion above could not accomplish its purposes without pondering some
possibilities for studying memory. The fact that memory is not limited by the borders of
the head, gives rise of further considerations to explore new approaches in studying
remembering. In the following paragraphs I will outline an approach suggested by
cultural psychologists Jaan Valsiner and Tatsuya Sato for studying social phenomena.
To some extend the last stop of my discussion is inspired by the fact that while I
was preparing the theoretical review for this paper I found some sources indicating that
from the same onset of psychology the researchers considered the possible idea that
memory “involves social interactions” (Danziger, 2008, p.132). The question is how to
study remembering as a social process. Jaan Valsiner and Tatsuya Sato (Valsiner &
Sato, 2006, p.216) proposed a new approach of studying life trajectories. This new
approach started up with concern expressed by Valsiner and Sato that the process of
sampling has to permit the researchers to study the phenomenon (ibid, p.216). This
includes also to “make visible” the relations within culture between individuals and
society (ibid, p.218) that changes constantly. According to the same authors the
traditional quantitative approach of sampling misses the interactions that subjects of the
study are in. And thus, the precision of the outcomes is lost (ibid, p.222). One of the
problems of quantitative experiments is that they can´t appropriately address the issue
of multiple causality in studying a phenomenon. This, of course, poses problems for the
developmental psychology where the development of the studied phenomenon shifts its
28
Is Memory still there?
causality (Valsiner & Sato, 2006, p.223). So what we need to study referring to any
social phenomena and particularly remembering is an approach that will reveal the
history of the phenomenon. The model proposed by Valsiner and Sato investigates the
system-historical trajectories that stretch over the past, the present and an analysis of the
construction of possible future trajectories (Ibid, p.224). The model is called
Trajectories Equifinality Model (TEM). The main premise behind it is that we cannot
study culture system by ignoring its history (ibid, p.226) as all phenomena progress in
time to reach equifinality points (EFP) ( events equal for everyone like birth and death)
(ibid, p.228). In every trajectory there are obligatory passage points (OPP) (events and
things experienced by everyone defined as important). These two concepts (OPP and
EFP) are analytical tools when we examine the development trajectories. How can we
apply the model to study memory? As suggested by the social psychology approach and
particularly social constructivism, the functions one phenomenon play can tell us about
its nature, we approach different life trajectories interested how for example actors or
pharmacists memorize. Within their stories we can identify the OPP and EFP (in the
case of the actors EFP might the performance on the stage and for pharmacists, final
product of medicine). By meeting over and over the same person tells us how he/she
uses memory to fulfill a task. We study how the participants go through OPP and EFP
(ibid, p.230), and how cultural processes emerge (ibid, p.231). The point is that we can
study development of not just of higher mental functions but also how remembering
occurs in our daily life.
The approach by Valsiner and Sato seems to be particularly fruitful for the study
of remembering because it considers remembering as a social phenomenon. Qualitative
approaches cover a wide range of possibilities to study remembering. Limitations of
space doesn´t allow discussing them here in detail.
Final Notes
I have argued that two main theoretical paradigms within psychology “claim
property” on memory: cognitive psychology and social constructivism. The former
approaches its subject of research by reducing memory to the mind borders and is
29
Is Memory still there?
interested in memory´s capacity to store information. Highly influenced by storage
metaphor, the cognitive psychology finds itself in a position where it became difficult to
define memory and point at its place.
The later paradigm, SC, considers memory or better called remembering as a
process of reconstruction that occurs in context of the culture and society. The SC
paradigm sees remembering outside of individual´s mind and defined by this context.
Trough this paper I put forwards arguments for scientific approach to memory
that successfully will lead us to a proper definition of memory and its location, and thus,
new approaches to study remembering not just as an individual phenomenon but also
social one.
The importance of this subject-how can we study memory scientifically- is
related to its applications in our everyday life. If we have to see a successful educational
system, we have to define remembering as it is grounded in learning, and learning is a
main concept that defines our education. In a line with L.S. Vygotsky,Jens Brockmeier,
Jerome Bruner, K. Gergen, Jaan Valsiner and many others who consider the social and
cultural context as a context of reconstructing remembering, I think that within SC there
are better arguments to reach a shared knowledge what memory is finally. By the way
SC defines remembering gives rise of considering new directions to study memory as
proposed by Valsiner and Sato – TEM.
However, with all these reviews and arguments for a discussion and a
conclusion, the research question was answered in a fitting fashion, which concludes
this thesis.
30
Is Memory still there?
Process Description
The topic of this bachelor thesis,”Memory”, intrigued me two years ago when it was
introduced to us at the lecture in Social Psychology. I picked it up for my first project
and had an opportunity to read some great deal of articles on memory research. When I
started again for this thesis to collect research on memory, I thought that I will have
difficulties to structure and organize my theoretical review and discussion. Still I
approached the topic with curiosity especially toward social constructivism. I was
familiar only with Bartlett and Vygotsky and their works. But from the same beginning
I decided to read every book slowly and attentively. If needed, I read over and over the
same chapters or the articles. Academic writing is not fiction, so this approach gave me
an opportunity to spend a qualitative time to outline arguments to answer my research
question. I had an opportunity to pay an attention to Cultural Psychology as a discipline
and this evoked further interest. The writing process was relatively fluent. Early in the
process outlining of my research question served as a guide to pick up those aspects of
the variety of theoretical readings that will be relevant to the research question. As a
result, I learnt a lot on the topic and particularly referring to the social constructivism
approach to study social phenomena.
Generally, for me writing this thesis was like revisiting old places and seeing them in
better way. With this I mean that I had to revisit the old literature that as a student I had
already a chance to read. But dealing again with the same and other literature on the
topic of memory I had a chance to get some new insights like to get familiar with the
arguments of the SC and Cultural Psychology to study memory in the way they do it.
31
Is Memory still there?
Curriculum
The total amount of pages referenced is 4371, hereof 3937 pages are curriculum
approved by the supervisor and 434 pages are used before.
Approved Curriculum
Bartlett, F.C. (1932).Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology.
Cambridge. Cambridge University Press (214 s.)
Brockmeier, J. (2010). After the Archive. In: Culture & Psychology, 16, (pp.5-35)
(30 p.)
Brockmeier,J. (2009) Remembering and Forgeting: Narrative as Cultural Memory.
In: Culture & Psychology,8 (pp.16-43) ( 27p.)
Bruner, Jerome (1990). Acts of meaning Harvard University Press (181 p.)
Burr, V. (1995). An Introduction to Social Constructionism. London Routledge
(pp 1-31) (30p.)
Danziger, K. (2008). Marking the Mind. Cambridge University Press (305 p.)
Edwards, D. (1997) . Discourse and Cognition, SAGE Publication (356 p.)
Ericsson, K.A. (2008) Superior Memory of Mnemonists and Experts in Various
Domains In: Cingulate Lab, (pp.809-817) (18s.) (pdf-file). Internet:
http://www.cingulate.ibms.sinica.edu.tw/Cingulate_Lab/shou_ye.html
Gergen, K. (2009). An Invitation to Social Construction. SAGE Publications Ltd
(186p.)
Haberlandt, K. (1994). Cognitive Psychology Allyn and Bacon (490 p.)
Halbwachs, M. (198). The Collective Memory. New York:Harper & Row.
(pp. 22-49) (27 p.)
Matlin, M. (2013). Cognition. Wiley. (612 p.)
Northway,M. (1940). The concept of the schema. In: British Journal of Psychology, 31,
(part 1 and 2) (pp 317-325) (pp 22-36) (22 p.)
Rønn, C. (2006). Almenvidenskabsteori. Akademisk Forlag (319 p.)
Shotter,J. (1990) The Social Construction of Remembering and Forgetting. In:
Middleton, D. & Edwards, D. Collective Remembering SAGE Publications.
32
Is Memory still there?
(pp.120-138) (18 p.)
Valsiner, J.(ed.), (2012) Oxford Handbook of Culture and Psychology. Cambridge
University Press (1130 p.)
Valsinre, J. & Sato,T., (2006) Historically Structured Sampling (HSS): How
Can Psychology´s Methodology Become Tuned in the Reality of the
Historical Nature of Cultural Psychology? In: Valsiner, J. (Ed.)
The Oxford Handbook of Culture and Psychology. Oxford University Press
(pp.215-251) (36 p.)
Vygotsky, Lev S. (!938), Mind in Society .Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard
University Press (159 p.)
Wertsch, J.W. (2002). Voices of Collective Remembering. Cambridge University Press.
(202 p.)
Wertsch, J. & Tulviste, P. (1992) L.S. Vygotsky and Contemporary Developmental
Psychology. In: Developmental Psychology, 28 (pp. 548-557) (9 p.)
References
Bartlett, F.C. (1932).Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology.
Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
Brockmeier, J. (2010). After the Archive. In: Culture & Psychology, 16, (pp.5-35)
Brockmeier,J. (2009) Remembering and Forgeting: Narrative as Cultural Memory.
In: Culture & Psychology,8 (pp.16-43).
Bruner, Jerome (1990). Acts of meaning Harvard University Press.
Burr, V. (1995). An Introduction to Social Constructionism. London Routledge
(pp 1-31).
Danziger, K. (2008). Marking the Mind. Cambridge University Press .
Edwards, D. (1997) . Discourse and Cognition, SAGE Publication .
Ericsson, K.A. (2008) Superior Memory of Mnemonists and Experts in Various
Domains In: Cingulate Lab, (pp.809-817) (18s.) (pdf-file). Internet:
http://www.cingulate.ibms.sinica.edu.tw/Cingulate_Lab/shou_ye.html
Gergen, K. (2009). An Invitation to Social Construction.SAGE Publication Ltd
Haberlandt, K. (1994). Cognitive Psychology. Allyn and Bacon
Halbwachs, M. (198). The Collective Memory. New York:Harper & Row.
33
Is Memory still there?
(pp. 22-49)
Keller, H. (2012). Cross-Cultural Psychology: Taking People, Contexts, and
Situations Seriously. In: Valsiner, J. (Ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Culture
and Psychology. Oxford University Press (pp. 116-131)
Matlin, M. (2013). Cognition. Wiley.
Northway,M. (1940). The concept of the schema. In: British Journal of Psychology, 31,
(part 1 and 2) (pp 317-325) (pp 22-36)
Rønn, C. (2006). Almenvidenskabsteori. Akademisk Forlag
Shotter,J. (1990) The Social Construction of Remembering and Forgetting. In:
Middleton, D. & Edwards, D. Collective Remembering SAGE Publications.
Valsiner, J.(ed.), (2012) Oxford Handbook of Culture and Psychology. Cambridge
University Press
Valsinre, J. & Sato,T., (2006) Historically Structured Sampling (HSS): How
Can Psychology´s Methodology Become Tuned in the Reality of the
Historical Nature of Cultural Psychology? In: Valsiner, J. (Ed.)
The Oxford Handbook of Culture and Psychology. Oxford University Press
( 36 p.)
Vygotsky, Lev S. (1938), Mind in Society .Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard
University Press
Wagoner, Brady (2012), Culture in Constructive Remembering. In J. Vasiner (ed.),
Oxford Handbook of Culture and Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.(pp.1034-1055)
Wertsch, J.W. (2002). Voices of Collective Remembering. Cambridge University Press.
Wertsch, J. & Tulviste, P. (1992) L.S. Vygotsky and Contemporary Developmental
Psychology. In: Developmental Psychology, 28 (pp. 548-557)
Yordanova, I.E. (2012). Actors´ Memory. A student project. (pp.1-30)
34