How will the Middle East Manage its New Memories of Violence

“No One should delude themselves into thinking we all use it the same way. But just as we use words like love and hate without ever knowing their full or shared significance, so we are bound to go on using the term ‘memory’ the historical signature of several generations, including our own” (Winter, 2006)

This article explores the potential issues relating to memories of violence in conflict communities, their relationship with their built environment, and the memories of a violence associated with the everyday. This is an place of entangled emotions where even the mundane routines of life are punctuated by the remainders and reminders of violence. These memories create an an alternative everyday sense of place, a traumatic association that evolves within communities.

Harvard professor of psychology, Daniel Schacter suggests that in life, almost all activities in some way deal with memory (Schacter2001). It is only through the capacity of memory that we can relate to different events, experiences, conditions, people and objects. It is fundamental in developing develop social relationships, master cognitive capabilities and solve various problems (Coman et al., 2009).

Memory is an impressive mental system that receives a huge amount of information, our brain retains it and makes it available to us when required. Memory is so significant to us, that without it, we would struggle to develop an identity, and a sense of belonging, we wouldn’t have the ability to move on from the first things experienced, which would render us fundamentally disoriented and vulnerable. McDowell suggests that “[w]hat we remember is what we are” (McDowell, Barniff 2016). To a certain extent, this is widely understood, albeit taken for granted and given little consideration. Less understood, is the implications in a peacebuilding process, how memory works and its fallible and fragile nature. If ‘what we remember is what we are’, then how does that apply to the people who make up a conflict community? how will their memories of violence manifest themselves in the future?

Freud stated that “the weak spot in the security of our mental life is the untrustworthiness of our memory” (Freud). What makes it disloyal is that contrary to Aristotle’s description of memory as an “imprint or drawing in us of things felt,” which gives the impression that memory is like a modern recording device that records images, speech, music or video clips that play back to us on demand, our memory system is dynamic. It remembers not only vocal and visual data but, ‘tactile impressions, feelings of pain and joy, motor skills, events and activities. In the main, our memory will provide reliable memories and serve us very well. However, it is important to consider that memory, when processing the information received, may assimilate, add, change, forget, or restructure the information.

Memory is not passive like a PC or a video camera, which reproduces the information in its original context, but reflective and susceptible to a range of influences within and exterior of, the brain. Therefore, memory accessed from long-term storage into short-term memory isn’t as robust as one might believe. It is malleable; new events or information can be added, and it can change our perceptions and what we think we remember about past events, resulting in subtle errors and misrepresentations (Schacter 2001,1).  

This is incredibly important to consider the crucial role memory has in conflict communities, groups of people who are often fatigued, fraught, emotionally vulnerable and disorientated. To emphasize the point and to reiterate the fragility of memory, especially when considered within a traumatic context such as war, it is important to acknowledge, what Schacter describes as the seven sins of memory. The first three, are ‘transience, absent-mindedness and blocking’ which are familiar to us all, and have to do with omission and the failure to recall the desired information (Schacter, 2002). The other four are related to cognition. In other words, where a memory is recalled, but is unwanted or incorrect. Schacter refers to these memories as misattribution, suggestibility, bias and persistence. Misattributed memory is when we attach the memory to the wrong source.  Suggested memory is a memory that has been created as a result of leading questions, comments or suggestions when a person is attempting to recall an experience. An interesting ‘memory sin’ to be aware of when working in communities which have experienced trauma such as civil war is a memory with bias, which Schacter describes as, “a memory that reflects the powerful influences of our current knowledge and beliefs on how we remember our past”.  He goes on to explain that, “We often edit or rewrite our previous experiences – unknowingly and unconsciously – in light of what we now know or believe. The result can be a skewed rendering of a specific incident, or of an extended period in our lives, which says more about how we feel now than about what happened then” (Schacter 2001,10). An interesting and pertinent aspect to this observation is the existence of a ‘stereotypical bias’ where memories are influenced by one’s involvement with other ethnic groups which leads to the creation of stereotypes that amplify their general characteristics and can manifest inaccurate and unwanted judgments about individuals. Finally, there is the seventh sin of ‘persistence’, a memory which in a conflict context, can be the most debilitating of all seven sins. This memory involves the repeated recollection of traumatic experiences or events, in other words, remembering what we wish we could forget, if only our brain would let us. This type of memory can be as Schacter warns, “disabling and even life-threatening” (Schacter 2001,11). These seven types of memory imperfections remind us that, although memory is an integral, relatively trusted aspect of who we are and how we perceive the environment in which we exist, it is important to monitor the established methods of representation, management and control of memory.

“Sometimes we forget the past and at other times we distort it; some disturbing memories haunt us for years. Yet we also rely on memory to perform an astonishing variety of tasks in our everyday lives” (Mifflin, 2001)

According to UNREST, a research project funded by the European Union’s Framework Programme for Research and Innovation there are three modes of remembrance, “a top-down cosmopolitan EU memory and bottom-up, antagonistic right-wing memory” and a third, agonistic memory which the program and others such as Bull and Hansen consider, “a new mode of remembrance” (Bull, Hansen 2016) which “embraces political conflict as an opportunity for emotional and ethical growth” (UNREST 2018) and addresses the void between the antagonistic and cosmopolitan modes or remembrance.

For many scholars such as Mouffe (2005,2013), Cazdyn and Szeman (2013) the ‘Cosmopolitan mode’ of discourse suggests, “solutions built upon transnational institutions and universal rights, ignores real and legitimate differences of social and political interests and leaves vital political questions unanswered for populist nationalists, racists and fundamentalists to seize upon” (Mouffe 2005).

There seem to be many sites which would represent this approach. A mode of remembrance that  Bull and Hansen suggest as being, “focus[ed] on the human suffering of past atrocities and human rights violations and represents ‘good and ‘evil’ in abstract terms”,  further explaining that the cosmopolitan mode’s “main narrative styles are characterized by reflexivity, regret and mourning” (Bull, Hansen 2016). The Cosmopolitan mode therefore, seems to promote reconciliation through the perspective of the victimised other, whilst shying away from representing the perpetrator’s perspective, which has silenced the victim to a point where they require a mediating intermediary to narrate their suffering and advocate their claims. Giesen states that “the victims themselves have no voices and no faces. They are dead, muted in their misery, numbed in their trauma” (Giesen 2004). Giesen goes on to explain that within the Cosmopolitan mode of remembrance victims now, “need civic or professional representation. Hence, agency is transferred to ‘professional specialists’, acting as ‘mediators between the victims and the public sphere” (Giesen 2004).

 Despite the criticism of the Cosmopolitan mode of remembering, for many it has been a mode of remembrance that has reaffirmed how communities act to define citizenship as a place where one would grieve or even to be seen to mourn (Winter 1995). A catalyst or focal point for rituals, narration and bereavement, the mode of remembrance has become more political since the 1980s. It has come to represent the positioning of global politics[1]. Bull and Hansen seem to agree and suggest that it “projects a sociality of common political engagement among all human beings across the globe, and, secondly, suggests that this sociality should be either ethically or organizationally privileged over other forms of sociality” (Bull, Hansen 2016). Volk goes further and suggests this mode of remembrance has become in certain situations within Europe and the United States, nothing more than a fabric of, “elite sponsored memorials and cemeteries hoping to win legitimacy by championing a unifying idea in a ‘fragmented’ country. By sculpting bodies, carving texts and posting banners, Lebanese politicians use public art to create national images. The making of memorials becomes a way for elites to publicly exercise power” (Volk 2010,6).

A different type of political positioning that allows for another mode of remembrance that exploits memories of heritage to create characters of good and evil, celebrating nostalgic narrative styles that amplify the perceptions of ‘them and us’ is an ‘antagonistic’ mode of remembering. And according to Mouffe it is a set of “collective memories constructed by populist neo-nationalist movements” which, as she writes in the Guardian newspaper 10th Sept 2018, is one of the ways “Right-wing populists proclaim they will give back to the people the voice that has been captured by the “elites”, thus “Drawing a line between the “people” and the “establishment” (Mouffe 2018).  As a reaction to this growing mode of remembering and the fragility of the Cosmopolitan mode, Mouffe and her contemporaries champion a different mode of remembering called ‘Agonism’ (Mouffe, 2005, 2012).

Agonism, has been explored by scholars seemingly “uncomfortable with the way things are” and sympathetic to a more agonistic approach and its potential impact on politics, cultural studies art and architecture (Tambakaki 2014). Although Schaap explains that Nietzsche, Burkhardt, Arendt and Foucault all refer to agonism as a way, “to conceptualize the conditions; and possibilities of political freedom” (Schaap 2016), it has been Chantal Mouffe, Bonnie Honig, William Connolly, David Owen and Andrew Schaap who have supported its resurgence in contemporary politics. Schaap suggests that within a post conflict, divided society, agonistic approaches to reconciliation and memory might be the way forward in so much as, “agonistic theory of democracy provides a critical perspective from which to discern what is at stake in the politics of reconciliation since it understands community as a contingent achievement of political action” (Schaap 2006). It is Bull and Hansen in an interview with the UNREST programme, who suggest orientating it towards a mode of remembrance and what that might represent. They argued that an agonistic mode of remembering would, “1. Give voice to all the parties of a conflict in a multi-voiced manner; 2. Contextualise conflicts and try to understand what makes perpetration possible, without excusing or legitimising the perpetrators; 3. Take a stand against hegemonic interpretations of the past and present, re–politicise the relation to the past and arouse passion for democratic involvement” (UNREST 2017).

However, do these established modes of remembrance despite their merits and good intentions, because of their weaknesses and political agendas, struggle to support and acknowledge the memories at a local level? a level at which the entangled emotions and memories appear to be an everyday factor of life within fragile post-conflict communities, where violent intentions fester and evolve quickly, often sparked or amplified by the unacknowledged or manipulated memories of conflict from a local perspective.  Are these, the places where a more nuanced mode of remembrance is required. A mode of remembrance underpinned by an agnostic approach to representation of violent memories, which can provide an essential platform for reconciliation in civil conflicts and support the broader reaching modes of remembrance related to nation-building exercises of making sense of the conflict and its impact. A mode of remembrance that acknowledges that, ‘all memories originate in some place or space’, and as such, the built environment should be a contributing factor and requires greater attention. For Koopman and Megoran, “[a]lmost all processes including war-making and peace-making take place somewhere, in a specific local setting” (Koopman & Megorn, 2011).

It could be that, without understanding and acknowledging the complexities of memory and emotions at the local level, peacebuilding will always be precariously positioned and vulnerable to exploitation by others intent on disrupting peace. Annika and Kappler refer to Richmond and McGinty as an example of this instability as they argue that, “[c]ontemporary peacebuilding missions profess to bring about ‘peace’, but what exactly constitutes peace is seldom apparent to the people on the ground. Where peace will take place is hence not always obvious, and not always does peace materialise in peoples’ everyday” (Annika, Kappler 2017).

Have we overlooked the importance and the construction of the everyday memories of people in conflict?