Schiff 1Tyrone Schiff Chandra Bhimull & Janam MukherjeeHistory 22918 April 2006Opposition Builds the FoundationIn the event that two seemingly different methods of interpretation clashed withone another, one would think that this would hinder and slow the progress of understanding those interpretations. However, in the case of history and memory, whilethe ideas counter one another, they ultimately work together to form a solid foundation of understanding and realization of what the past was truly about. In both of these circles of thought, history or memory, there are varying interpretations and perspectives of the past,and while they provide different depictions of each, they help in formulating a full storyof the past. Two articles in particular discuss the phenomenon of history and memoryopposing one another, but inevitably gaining more truth in the process. In RaphaelSamuel’s “Theatres of Memory” and Pierre Nora’s “Between Memory and History: LesLieux de Memoire” this idea is tackled on a number of different fronts. In both pieces, theauthors discuss how memory and history confront each other and instead of making the past more complicated, lead to a further understanding of it. Therefore, one can assert thatwhile history and memory tend to oppose one another in terms of their perception andinterpretation of the past, they are the driving force that provides an individual with afuller more meaningful picture of the past.For the sake of clarity, history shall be defined as the type of past that is welldocumented. Essentially, this type of past can be found in an encyclopedia or a museum.

Schiff 2It should further be based on Nora’s definition that history, “is the reconstruction, always problematic and incomplete, of what is no longer” (Nora, 8). On the other hand, memoryshall be defined as general ideas and understanding of the past that have been passeddown through folklore or legend. It has no archives, but is still regarded as the truth. Noraexplains further in the following definition, “Memory is life, borne by living societiesfounded in its name. It remains in permanent evolution, open to the dialectic of remembering and forgetting…vulnerable to manipulation and appropriation, susceptibleto being long dormant and periodically revived” (Nora, 8).The reason that history and memory tend to oppose one another is due to the factthat history grounds itself in evidence while memory is more of a personal depiction of the past. Raphael Samuel explains this rift in ideology when he states, “Popular memoryis on the face of it the very antithesis of written history. It eschews notions of determination and seizes instead on omens, portents and signs” (Samuel, 6). The quotereveals that memory differs from history in its attempts to make determinations or seek out truths about the past. Though this may appear to make the whole task of uncoveringone’s past more complicated, it rather helps to describe a fuller image of the past. Historyallows for one particular interpretation and similarly memory can provide its owninterpretation of a given event from the past. Though they may at times contradict theother point of view, they ultimately help fill in the gaps that are inherent to each practiceof viewing the past. Neither history nor memory will ever be able to document an entire event fully, but when the two elements are combined a far greater understanding of the past willensue. This becomes alarmingly true when Nora explains that, “Every great historical

Schiff 3revision has sought to enlarge the basis for collective memory” (Nora, 9). While it has been shown that these two schools of thought often times oppose one another, the resultis something far more harmonious. The quality of history is improved by the collectivememory that is adopted by a society. More over, that collective memory is often timescontoured and molded differently as more concrete evidence is found out regarding the past which contributes to the documentation of history. These varying interpretations and perceptions of the past help formulate a far better understanding of the past.Consider, however, that without the one method of understanding the past, theother is no longer as potent in its validity. Nora explains what the aim of history is in thefollowing sentence, “History is perpetually suspicious of memory, and its true mission isto suppress and destroy it” (9). While this may be the aim of history in regards tomemory, it certainly is not so in reality and in no way accurately describes the practicalconnection between the two. The strength of history is derived from the strength of memory and vice-a-versa, and due to this, they both have equal power when conductingan analysis and interpretation of the past. In a universe in which no memory existed,history would do a severely mediocre job of portraying the past, solely based on the factthat history is often times, if not always, documented by the winners. Memory providesthe opposing story or viewpoint that works to further the understanding of a given event.It provides personal accounts and stories that make the past easier to grasp and relate to.Thus, there exists an intrinsic power of interpretation and perspective that lies equally in both memory and history.History and memory approach retelling the story of the past differently by usingmethods of macro or micro history. Quite simply, the difference between macro and