Loading...The sixth chapter of my book Jesus Before the Gospels is tentatively entitled “Collective Memory and Early Recollections of Jesus.” In it I deal with the phenomenon that sociologists call collective memory. This phenomenon is different from the one we normally think of when we think of memory; most of the time we think of the psychological phenomenon of individual memories – either of things we’ve experienced (“episodic” memories, as they are called, as I have pointed out), or or things we have learned about the world (“semantic” memories), or of things we know how to do, such as hit a backhand in tennis or ride a bike (“procedural “ memories). Sociologists for the past 90 years, though, have talked about how social groups reconstruct and imagine and preserve the past. Here is how I introduce the matter in my chapter, before beginning to talk about the sociologists who pioneered the field (Maurice Halbwachs) and developed it (Jan Assmann and Barry Schwartz, for example)
*******************************************************************
I first began to see that memory is radically affected by a person’s social context when I moved to the South in 1988. I had spent my entire adult life in other climes, five years in Chicago and ten in various places in New Jersey. Over the course of those fifteen years, I had little reason to think about the American Civil War. It was simply part of the background knowledge of the past that all of us had, the war against slavery that was one by the side that subscribed to all that was good, fair, and true. Those poor Confederate soldiers may have fought valiantly for their cause, but their cause was misguided and it was a good thing they lost. Everyone thought that. Right? I had no idea that there was another side to the story, one that was still held with some fervor over 120 years after the war had been decided.
It was in the South that I first “learned” that the Civil war was not about slavery but about state-rights. Down here it was more commonly referred to with a term I had never heard before: “The War of Northern Aggression.”
At first I thought ….
THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong, you don’t know what you’re missing!! TAKE THE LEAP AND JOIN UP!!!
i have to say im seriously surprised that most historians arnt significantly trained in the psychology of memory and all that goes with it. its such a big part in figuring out what prob happened in the past
This kind of history is an important part of the modern discipline. I hear about it a lot at my place, where we have a masters program and undergraduate major track in “public history”: presenting history to the public, where of course memory plays a big role. However, here is the current week in my world history survey:
Last class we talked about World War II, and focused on how the historical memories of different countries shaped their subsequent attitudes. Europe was demolished for the second time in the century, and war became a reality to be avoided. For the U.S., war was something that happened overseas, with Americans playing a key role turning the tide, and this is a factor in American foreign policy attitudes. Americans hardly realize that China lost 20 million people in World War II at Japanese hands, but Japanese aggression in Asia plays a role in diplomacy in that region today.
Now we’ve moved on to the Cold War, which looks a lot different if you remember the Chilean or Congolese experience than that of the U.S. or USSR, and that continues to affect attitudes to the global north. One finds the same thing in different memories underlying strongly held views of the Arab-Israeli conflict or U.S.-Iranian relations. In other words, such memories, as well as how they are formed and transmitted through families and institutions, is part and parcel of the modern discipline of history.
Or perhaps, the North’s false memory, that the war was fought over slavery, is what you brought with you down south, while the South’s memory that a Union entered into upon agreement can be dissolved whenever the contract is changed. Maybe they should have worked on abolition first, then the establishment of a Union. It’s ironic that to enslave someone is to capture and contain them against their will or by force, without regard to their wants, desires, and freedom yet the North took the south by force to enforce unwanted authority over them.
I have studied the causes of the Civil War, and have discovered in my reading that, though the war was about slavery, it was not necessarily about slavery as a moral issue-it was about the power and money associated with slavery. The main question was whether to allow slavery to expand into the US Territories acquired from Mexico, thereby increasing the political power and economic influence of southern slaveholders. When we consider the issue in those terms, the North looks a bit less “righteous.” There were no “good guys and bad buys,” just a bunch of Americans disagreeing about power and money-just like today. I know that this is not the main issue concerning how history is remembered, but it gives us some inkling concerning how differently people in Ante-bellum America were approaching slavery from people who were dealing with the issue after the war ended, allowing “memories” to change. So, its basically true that Northerners were as prone to false memories as their Southern contemporaries. Southerners had just lost a lot more, so there was more bitterness for them to cope with.
Very late to the game here,but an important topic for me.
For those who would like to beleive the civil War (or Secession) was not about slavery, I invite your attention to the the various Articles of Secession passed in the legislatures of the various seceding states. You will, upon perusing these, have no doubt about why the southern states thought they were seceding. On average, articles 1-10, defend the slave model. In some cases, and only afer these, complaints about tariffs or what have you.
As to the North’s motivation being to prevent the extension of slavery, that is correct, but not just to new territories. The recent Dredd Scott decision, which said that a slave taken into a free state was still the slave of his master, effectively made every state a slave state (think about it). Was opposition to this altruistic? In many cases not. Was it populist? You bet it was. What chance had free labor in a slave economy?
Bart,
When you define of “false memories” in your book, how about explaining one type of such meaning something like “a correct memory of a story that can’t be historically true”?
Many of us have struggled with that concept, and that explanation you gave helped me a lot.
I heard that same expression on a tour trolly of the city of New Orleans. The guide indicated that the Civil War was “The War of Northern Aggression.” I put back my tip into my pocket. It raised my ire. I also had a history teacher who I taught with in Orange County, CA who had a Confederate Flag flying in his classroom. I sat with him at lunch, unfortunately, for 20+ years. I had to bite my tongue a lot, and it was mostly damaged by the time I retired. Anyway, there is so much to this: can you say how much a “belief system” affects a collective memory? In other words, how much does what one believe affect how they perceive the memory of that event?
Hi Bart, with the amount of writing you do I will assume the mistake you made with the homophone below is due to your heavy work load. It did make me wonder about homophones in Greek and the possibility of them being used in transcripts. Was this scenario a possibility?
“It was simply part of the background knowledge of the past that all of us had, the war against slavery that was ‘one’ by the side that subscribed to all that was good, fair, and true.”
I came from fundamentalist circles like Professor Erhman… in fact, Moody Bible Institute was liberal to Independent Baptists of the Jack Hyles ilk. So, I know Professor Erhman is familiar with the “history” that fundamentalists favor regarding early (first century) Christianity. Fundamentalists assume, so I was taught anyway, that the early church of the first century was largely homogeneous in the beliefs and basic historical understanding of the events of the life of Jesus and the apostles after the crucifixion and resurrection (at least until the 2nd Century, when the heretics wreaked havoc on the church). However, is there evidence to suggest that different Christian communities situated is different geographic parts of the Roman Empire remembered the life of Jesus and the Apostles differently (as opposed to various Christian communities at different times, first century vs. second century)? In other words, is there evidence that Christians in Asia Minor might have had a different collective memory vs the Christians of Rome?
Yes, I think it can be shown that different churches remembered Jesus’ life differently.
When we moved from Virginia to the MIdlands of South Carolina, some said we were from “up north” knowing very well Virginia was a southern state, but it’s a very different southern state. Our new neighbor’s small boy had to show us his belly button “where the Yankee shot him”. That was years ago. At a tea just this February the hostess explained her house was not burned to the ground by Sherman because he saw a Masonic emblem over one of the doors. (Supposedly, Sherman’s father was a Mason.) These Southerners are never going to forget.
Bart,
I understand your larger point but disagree with your characterization of the thoughts and beliefs of the inhabitants of what is now your home state. In my experience, the attitudes that you describe are the exception and not the rule in North Carolina. I am proud that UNC can name you among its faculty! I am saddened that you choose to generalize regarding the mindsets of your students and neighbors in a manner that cannot fairly be described as other than condescending.
Dan Morton
I’m not saying that everyone here holds that view. I’m simply relating what I experienced.
Wow! This is very thought provoking. Good work! So, what do the “collective memories” of early Christians tell us about them? To answer that, of course, is why we need to read the chapter. Moreover, what do collective memories tell us about current Christians?
They too have them!
I will eagerly be looking forward to reading your new book. I know It will be fascinating.
Historians call this the “Lost Cause Myth..” White Southerners used it during and after Reconstruction as an excuse to disfranchise the newly freed slaves and re-enslave them using terror, chain gang labor and debt peonage (sharecropping). Of course, many Southerners were Calvinist Evangelicals who ardently believed that God was on their side in the conflict, so they needed a narrative that explained the defeat in terms that exonerated them from fighting on the side of “evil.” Consequently, the same politicians who insisted that secession was about slavery before and during the war insisted that the war was about “state’s rights” after the war. The state’s rights myth also conveniently shielded those politicians from accusations that they had mismanaged the Confederate war effort from the beginning (not that adequate management of the war would have changed the outcome!)
Of course, the “lost cause myth” is only one of many historical distortions created by this creative tendency for narratives that exonerate the believers from a deeper examination of their responsibility for their own suffering. The worst is probably the “dolchstoss” myth believed by many Germans after their defeat in World War I. Then there was the Deuteronomist……
Please disregard my last comment. I trust in your good intentions. Sorry to be so thin skinned.
I’m having a friendly back and forth with a Christian female friend of a friend and I’m asking her how she reconciles the treatment of women in the pastorals with Paul’s treatment in his other non-pseudepigraphic (pseudepigraphical?) epistles. I told her that Paul said women could be apostles and mentioned Junia from Romans 16:7. I don’t believe there are other places where Paul flat out calls any woman an apostle (and of course after googling the Junia verse this lady points out the minority view of what Paul says about Junia being an apostle!). What places might we infer Paul said women were apostles (or from non-Pauline sources), places where perhaps if we use the definition of an apostle and compare it to how Paul describes other women? Is this covered in your “After the New Testament”? I’ve had this book on my Amazon wish list for a couple of months.
That’s the only reference.
I learned about memory and perspective when I lived in San Antonio way back in 1954. I am from southeast Kansas and was referred to there as “a Yankee”.
If this is from the original working copy, then do not repeat the word “was” in the next to last line.
This subject too is new to me and I haven’t much to offer except what I’ve read in Carl Jung that individuals who had dreams or spiritual experiences wherein symbols fell outside of the individual’s group or culture, within time altered the dream/spiritual experiences to fit WITHIN the individual groups collective symbolism.