Hello Readers,
My name is Kendall Manifould. I am a student of the Global Citizens CAP stream here at UBC, and as such, am a participant of an Arts Studies (ASTU) class. In this class in the past week we have discussed, in-depth, many topics. However the subject that I am most interested in is the topic of memory.
Memory is such a broad and all-encompassing topic. Memory can be regarded as strictly individual, memory can also be collective—within a group, society or culture—memory can even be passed down through generations. The reason why this subject is so interesting to me is because even though memory is a part of everyone’s lives, there’s so much mystery surrounding it. What causes one memory to be stored over another? Why do we foster some memories, while trying desperately to forget others? And, the real question: Is memory a reliable source for recounting events?
Scott Fraser, a forensic psychologist, argues in his TED talk that no, memory should not be regarded as a reliable source of recounting events. He argues that reconstructed memories fill in too many of the gaps when we recall events—that “the human brain fills in information that was not…originally stored.” (Note: Fraser’s TED talk deals mainly with eye-witnesses to crimes such as murder.) And this may be true—I do believe that the human brain only picks up bits and pieces and that it is impossible to recall events with perfect clarity—however, I also believe that memory is arguably the most authentic way to record history. First hand accounts may not get all the nitty-gritty details correct, but if the event leaves a powerful impression, first hand accounts are also the most likely to be true, and not muddled by governments, editors, or societies and will not be glossed over like in history books.
I recently finished reading Marjane Satrapi’s graphic memoir, Persepolis. It recounts Satrapi’s experiences as a child living in Iran during the Islamic Revolution, and all the horrors that were a part of her daily life growing up. What is unique about this memoir, besides its graphic format, is the fact that the main character, narrator, and author are not all the same person. That is, the plot is told from the viewpoint of a younger Satrapi, recounting her experiences and what she thought of them at the time, but narrated by a much older and more knowledgeable Satrapi. It is a powerful juxtaposition.
A question posed during our discussion in class was, does the fact that Satrapi is writing based on experiences that happened so long ago cause the meaning and significance of the work to lose its authority? Something Dr. Luger stated off hand that really stuck with me was that it is “a story of childhood, not a story of politics.” Satrapi is simply recounting events that happened to her, personally; her main aim is not to recount a historical summary of the Islamic Revolution in complete historical and political accuracy.
Another question that was posed during our first lecture was “Is remembering a moral act? What about forgetting?” and this is also a subject that young Satrapi grapples with throughout her memoir. I personally believe that remembering is a noble act, and forgetting is an atrocious crime. Forgetting as a self defense mechanism in reaction to trauma is one thing, but I wholly believe that it is one’s duty to remember and be a witness to important events. It is the brave, and noble thing to do. Even in the introduction of Persepolis, Satrapi ends it by stating, “One can forgive but one should never forget.”
Individuals all have collected and stored memories within them. These memories then, in turn, shape who they are as an individual.
People are stories, just waiting to be told.
Until next time, readers.
—Kendall Manifould