History vs Memory

1165 Words5 Pages
History - a record theoretically founded on evidence - a record of facts, data and statistics - a process of evaluation and reflection - verifiable therefore reliable - official, rational and non- personal - conservative and informative - characterised by a systematic and organised structure - objective and unbiased Memory - the mental capacity of retaining, reviving or recalling impressions, precious experiences - fragile and often biased - personal rather than factual - vulnerable to forgetfulness over time - a mere snapshot of time - often incomplete, fallible or distorted - fragmented, full of gaps and without any chronological order - often triggered by personal emotions, associations and sensory stimulus- unlike archival material - represented by icons and mementos of the past such as photographs and artefacts indicative of other times, places of the past. - subjective, biased and subject to prejudice Objectivity versus subjectivity - history: Latin meaning story - traditionally viewed as a sequential series of indisputable events, held in high esteem as being a factual account of past occurrences. - authentic because it is a process involving academic evaluation and reflection - use to view memory as unreliable and therefore unworthy of being an alternative discourse to history. - history can mean different things to different people - as history itself attests, any interpretation of past events has the potential to vary due to the examiners personal and cultural prejudices, interests, and academic rationality. - analysis is often interpretive and as such is subjective in nature and therefore problematic. - both history and memory can be unreliable, their integration offers a more tangible and trustworthy representation of the past. - the blending of history and memory is empowering; revealing glimpses of the ordinary and
Open Document