❦︎
Introduction
Growing up as an only child, I received a lot of speculation — usually in the form of little jokes — about my parents absolutely spoiling me. The logic being that, since my parents have only one child, all birthdays, Christmases, and even day-to-day gestures of giving were magnified, as they only had to make one child happy via gifts. Although my parents were generous with the gifts they gave me on the two major celebrations per year, they were, above all, thoughtful with their giving; every gift had to have deep emotional meaning and was usually small, in some form of metal. One of the first gifts that I can remember receiving from my parents was a small heart locket. It is silver, engraved with swirls and now slightly tarnished from years of wear. I have worn it since childhood, and initially, my parents gave it to me so I could place photos inside that represented the subjects that mattered to me deeply at the age of five. I always wanted to put my parents inside of it, but alas, I didn’t have a colour printer for the first nine years of my life, and after that point, I had simply just forgotten about it. For years, the locket sat empty around my neck, enduring the hot waters of many showers and the stinging cold of the winters it brought to the metal. Only recently have I filled it with photos of my partner and me. To me, my locket mediates both potential and presence-in-absence. Even when empty, it carried cultural meaning and expectation; when filled, it enacted intimacy, rendering it a rich example of media theory around hypomnesia, anamnesis, and image as paradox.
Description
Describing my evocative object is fairly simple: if one pictures a heart locket in their mind, there is a high chance that the conjured image will resemble my locket. I wear a thick, 15-inch chain, which has replaced the thin, 20-inch chains that came before and broke due to excessive wear. On the chain sits the pendant itself, which is round and heart-shaped, meant to carry images close to the heart, quite literally. Despite the locket being empty for fourteen years, the absence of the photos did not erase the meaning of the locket for me, as the shell of the pendant reminded me of what is missing, and what is yet to come. As I have recently filled my locket with two images of my partner and me, the locket now mediates and embodies intimacy, love, and continuity.
Mediation
When empty, my heart locket mediated potential and expectation, as it was quite literally an object “waiting” for memory, in the form of special images. In terms of cultural and historical significance, heart lockets have been “associated with love, affection, and emotional connection” (Locket Sisters). Lockets bloomed in popularity as early as the Victorian era, in which lovers would store photos, letters, and even locks of hair from their loved ones — even when a pendant is empty, it stages that possibility of being filled. When filled with sentimental items, most commonly images, the heart locket mediates presence-in-absence: in my case, the photos of my partner stand in for him when apart. The heart locket creates intimacy through selection and scarcity, as the two images that are selected to reside inside the pendant are special and limited in quantity. Furthermore, the ritual of opening and closing the pendant’s hinge is a tactile mediation of memory itself. Empty or filled, the locket is never neutral. Rather, the shift demonstrates that this object and its mediation are dynamic and flexible, never fixed.
Theory
Upon thinking of which object of mine I would like to write about as an evocative object, my heart locket came to mind because of its ties to the theories and discussions we have engaged with in class. In Critical Terms for Media Studies chapter 05 “Memory”, Bernard Stiegler writes about hypomnesis, as the technical and externalized forms of memory, such as photography serving as memory externalizations, and anamnesis, “the remembering of things from a supposed previous existence” (Oxford). The former correlates to the locket when it held no photos, as it was already a technical support of memory. Its very design, with the hinge, cavity, and chain, indicates its intended use, of holding images of ones near and dear to your heart. When I wore my necklace as a child, I was very much aware of what it should contain — this cultural script is a form of hypomnesis as the object outsources memory before it is even filled. Its design and cultural script reminded me of the relationships I may one day want to preserve and honour with my pendant. When I finally placed photos of my partner inside, the locket became a coupling of hypomnesis and anamnesis: the images function as external memory supports, but only matter because they call forth embodied recollections each time I open it. In Stiegler’s terms, the locket demonstrates how technical memory and lived memory are inseparable in mediation (Memory 77).
In chapter 03 “Image”, W. J. T. Mitchell argues that images are always paradoxical — they are both present and absent, here and not-here (Image 35-36). My heart locket demonstrates this paradox in both ways: when it was empty, the absence of images was still meaningful as it reminded me of what should be there, consequently staging the absence as potential presence. Once filled, the photos embody the paradox even more clearly. My partner’s face is materially here in the locket, but he is also not here — only represented. Each time I open it, I experience both recognition and loss, the double-moment Mitchell describes where an image appears as both a physical object and a ghostly apparition (Image 39).
Conclusion
As a mediator, a heart locket is certainly dynamic, as they do not necessarily have to be “used” in the intended manner to mediate meaning. Connecting my evocative object to Stiegler’s theories of memory’s exteriorization and Mitchell’s detailing of image’s paradoxical nature reminded me that mediation is not solely about digital technologies — even small analog objects shape memory, intimacy, and identity. This is something that was also revealed to me in Sherry Turkle’s Evocative Objects: Things We Think With. However, connecting these theories to an object that I consider mundane and wear every day, is even more revealing, as it suggests that mediation includes both what is present and what is possible.
Works Cited
“Locket Sisters.” Locket Sisters, 2020, thelocketsisters.com/locket-stories/the-meaning-behind-heart-lockets-a-symbol-of-love-connection-and-cherished-memories/. Accessed 4 Oct. 2025.
Stiegler, Bernard. “Memory.” Critical Terms for Media Studies, edited by W. J. T. Mitchell and Mark B. N. Hansen, University of Chicago Press, 2010, pp. 64–87.
Mitchell, W. J. T. “Image.” Critical Terms for Media Studies, edited by W. J. T. Mitchell and Mark B. N. Hansen, University of Chicago Press, 2010, pp. 35–38. Accessed 4 Oct. 2025.
Turkle, Sherry, ed. Evocative Objects: Things We Think With. MIT Press, 2007. Accessed 4 Oct. 2025
“Anamnesis.” Oxford Languages, Google, 2025, https://www.google.com/search?q=anamnesis+definition. Accessed 4 Oct. 2025.
Hi Lea,
I thought this was a great post — really personal to you but rich in tying your locket to critical theory. I liked how you connected both concepts of hypomnesis and anamnesis to the before and after of putting the image inside the locket. Also, really interesting parallel made with using both types of memory (technical and lived) to fit within your evocative object! I agree with your takeaway that, no matter the scale or if it’s digital, any object can mediate our perception of memory.
Hi Lea! This was such a powerful and personal post and I really enjoyed reading it as I also have been keeping an empty locket! The way you explain how lockets can mediate when empty AND when filled is beautiful. Linking it to Bernard Stiegler’s concept of hypomnesis and anamnesis was eye-opening and I think helped all of us readers appreciate small analog objects a little more for their ability to shape memory, intimacy, and identity.
Hi Lea!!
This is such a lovely post!! To me, jewelry always feels like a meaningful gift as it kind of becomes an extension of ourselves in many ways. I believe that, in a way, they become a statement to our identities, just like how clothes do. I also really appreciated the cover image you created. It really shows how important the locket is to you and how often you wear it. The transformation of the locket reminded me of the final chapter of Evocative Objects. There is a section where Turkle discussed the idea of “transitional objects.” These kinds of objects tend to deteriorate and are often meant to be left behind, but still leave a lasting impact on us. You mentioned how the locket’s chain broke due to excessive wear. Yet, you have still chosen to keep it rather than replace it. This shows how much you value the memories it holds and the connection you have created to that specific necklace. Great work!!
Great post Lea! I really enjoyed the background you gave about the history of lockets, there’s such a cultural significance to them, it’s not surprising they’ve stood the test of time. I really enjoyed your dynamic approach to your locket as something that accumulates meaning over time, and whose meaning transcends the life of that one instance of the cultural concepts materiality. I think it’s really interesting to consider how brand new objects are already injected with memory simply by being something we ascribe a specific purpose to. Your discussion of your locket as one of these objects was really eye-opening, and the way you talked about its meaning to you, even if it didn’t have a picture in it, reminded me of the colloquialism “absence makes the heart grow fonder”.
The idea of the locket being a way of mediating between you and the potential is so sweet and cute! I also have a locket that I bought from a vintage Sanrio store that now holds a picture of my dog. 🙂 This reminds me of the transition and passage chapters of Sherry Turkle’s evocative objects since it represents the change you went through from the locket being an empty vessel to now contain something (or someone) that means a lot to you.