Cultural memory

How we see ourselves as a people and nation

By Susan Williams

“Cultural memory refers to how a group of people with a shared history and cultural identification create ways of perceiving themselves,” said Miller. “People have a cultural memory insofar as they see themselves as part of a collective story. Cultural memory gathers things like narratives, values, martyrs, leaders and heroes into an account that helps us understand ourselves.”

An amazingly large part of America’s cultural memory centers around war. Consider the obvious patriotic manifestations: war memorials, holidays—Memorial Day, Veterans Day and the Fourth of July—parades, cemeteries and statues. And, Americans have a huge body of war movies, many of which glorify battle and emphasize triumph.

But looking back, honoring the past, is only one part of cultural memory and its function in a society.

“It sounds strange to say, but cultural memory also looks forward,” Miller said. “It is meant to shape the civic character of future generations in order to continue a common story. We ask ourselves if a war is just, not only to evaluate our current policies and practices, but also because we know that the memory of war will be passed along to future citizens. In very general terms we ask, ‘What is the meaning of this war? What role does it play in self-understanding? What will it say about us?’ We revisit Hiroshima, for example, because we want to know what kind of people carried out this destructive act. We also use past wars as a prism through which to view new or imminent conflicts.

“War asks for the ultimate sacrifice so we should worry about how we look back as we look ahead. The stakes are obviously high,” he said.

Such questions should result in public debate, another “player” in how cultural memory is formed. Miller said that public debate is part of what helps us sort out the odd mixture of emotions we may experience in response to something as complicated and powerful as war—pride, anger, patriotism, resentment, sorrow, indignation.

In terms of the current war with Iraq, public debate is yet to happen, said Miller, a military son whose Naval officer father trained the famous Doolittle Raiders in World War II. And he’s concerned that public debate might not occur.

“With this war,” he explained, “democratic debate has been discouraged. There has been an equation made between dissent and a lack of patriotism, and that is unfortunate, because dissent is a vital component of democracy.”

Miller went on to explain dissent as a civil responsibility, and he distinguishes between “instrumental” and “expressive” dissent.

“To me,” he said, “instrumental dissent is an expression of civic responsibility insofar as it aims to hold political leaders accountable for their decisions. Expressive dissent, in contrast, is an aesthetic, a self-expression that is an end in itself. It is not patriotic but more ‘a-patriotic.’ I see it as an expression of freedom rather than of productive criticism. Instrumental dissent aims to improve the moral quality of the Res Publica. I’m not sure I can say the same thing about expressive dissent.”

While many people react negatively to dissent during times of war, Miller said that dissent can contribute to the formation and expression of the American conscience.

“We need to debate whether or not the reasons for going to war are vindicated. So far, there has been an embarrassing lack of evidence regarding our principal stated motive—that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. Nor has there been evidence to show that the U.S. was at risk, despite Bush’s appeal to self-defense as one reason for the invasion.”

Miller said that the media have helped to have public debate in the past, but with the new practice in the war with Iraq of embedding reporters, the media have functioned differently. “During the Vietnam War, the media played a more critical role,” said Miller. “It clearly sensitized us to war and awakened our consciousness. Now, war coverage seems to be one big infomercial. There has not been a lot of social criticism or an effort to help the public think about the context for this attack. Now, we have the war interrupted by commercials, or the war updated during the NCAA basketball tournament. The media have had a more leveling or desensitizing effect in that they are somehow equating war to basketball.”

The media can still inform in a way that is instructional. According to Miller, having the media embedded deep within the war was an attempt to give a new perspective. The desire was for reality and a focus on the means of war. “The disadvantage of that approach is that it allowed the media no distance or time to step back from the action to provide a framework for interpreting the invasion. In the attempt to assimilate the newest chapter of war into our cultural memory, we need both viewpoints.”

As Miller said, “Constructive reflection relies on both vantages points—near and distant. Together those vantage points help us to sort out the morality of this war and provide a compass for thinking about the next conflict.”