ࡱ> ` Jbjbjss 4Ci.$BBBV...8//dVg 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0ggggggg$ihkz4gBN 0 0NN4gBB 0 0Igv\v\v\NB 0B 0gv\Ngv\v\:a,BBlb 0/ `4a+.V6b f,_g0gbRqlZqllblbnqlBb 0 :v\B$H& 0 0 04g4g \j 0 0 0gNNNNVVVd&$VVV&VVVBBBBBB 27 May 2011 Comprehensive Definition Paper Contested Memory & Intersubjectivity In the introduction to their edited volume, Contested Pasts, Katherine Hodgkin and Susannah Radstone write that the focus of contestation with respect to matters of meaning-making and the (re)presentation of the past is very often not conflicting accounts of what actually happened in the past so much as the question of who or what is entitled to speak for the past in the present (2003, p.1). This comprehensive definition takes contested memory as its focus in a discussion of how different subject positions are configured, challenged, and marginalized through the (re)production and expression of memorial practices. Specifically, I examine how memorial practices are sites of intersubjective negotiation. These practices and negotiations take on various forms that are influenced by existing and historical structures of power and trauma. In this comprehensive definition, I examine the ability of individuals and groups to self-reflexively participate in acts of remembering that are influenced by historical trauma. These memory practices also carry the potential to initiate transformative personal and political action when a past trauma is publicly recognized and acknowledged. Contested Memory and Intersubjectivity The two notions at the centre of this definition: contested memory and intersubjectivity might adequately be described as what cultural theorist Mieke Bal (2002) terms travelling concepts. The interdisciplinary nature of research in the broad area of memory studies means that scholars working across disciplinary backgrounds can find it difficult to communicate when a seemingly shared set of terms actually means different things to different people. In fact, the lack of commonly understood disciplinary boundaries leads some to question whether memory studies are a distinct field (Radstone, 2008). However, in the first volume of the journal Memory Studies, the editors describe the publication as a site where topic-driven, rather than methodologically similar, studies can lead to a rich discussion based on concepts rather than disciplines (Hoskins et al., 2008, p. 5-6). I use the term memory practices to refer to the consciously designed actions that individuals and groups use to recall and shape the past in the present. Memory practices are then both the imagined and the real contestation of authority when it comes to making sense of the past. As such, these practices occur on multiple levels in dialogue, in performance and reception, in shared and unspoken silences, and across actual physical places by actual physical bodies (Antze & Lambek, 1996; Argenti & Schramm, 2010; McAllister, 2010; Purbick et al., 2007; Walkowitz & Knauer, 2009). Scholarly understandings of memory also speak to the range of social implications that are influenced by memory practices how collectivities manage a shared understanding of the past and the place of individuals within those groups (Connerton, 1989; Halbwachs, [1924] 1992) In this definition I want to draw attention to how memory practices offer the potential for intersubjective recognition and acknowledgement, particularly when a history of violence and trauma has damaged the basis of an individuals or groups ability to engage with others. To do this, I draw on Michael Jacksons (2002) argument that storytelling, a particular expressive form, presents individuals with strategic opportunities to make their private experiences public and to sustain a sense of agency in the face of disempowering circumstances (p.14). Intersubjectivity provides a way of approaching contested memory at a primary level that is, the most basic of dynamics between two people who have the potential to create a relationship of acknowledgement and recognition that opens the possibility for the most difficult and traumatic experiences to be understood. However, relationships where subjects recognize and acknowledge one another should not be confused as an exchange between equal partners. Intersubjectivity is, as Bal (2002) notes, a concern that binds procedure with power and empowerment, with pedagogy and the transmittability of knowledge, with inclusiveness and exclusion (p.11). Bals definition of intersubjectivity points to the transformative potential of meaning-making memory practices that arise from relationships based in respect and empathy. The key issues of contested memory and intersubjectivity that provide the boundaries for this comprehensive definition also relate to my proposed dissertation project. I am interested in how creative agents artists and curators, for example shift through a multitude of subject positions documentarian, witness, facilitator, creator as they contribute to artistic memory practices. Individuals who share their memories make choices about what form their expressions will take. These choices are very much influenced by social, political, economic, and cultural factors which allow for some memories to be made manifest while other types of remembering resist public communication. Having outlined the two concepts that guide this definition and discussed the basis of my interest in this area, I now turn to the key question which structures the reminder of this definition, namely: how do imbalances in power and historical violence shape memory practices? Power and Historical Violence Nancy Scheper-Hughes and Phillipe Bourgois (2004) describe the difficulty in definitively characterizing violence. For Scheper-Hughes and Bourgois, violence and power are intertwined: Violence can never be understood solely in terms of its physicality force, assault, or the infliction of pain alone. Violence also includes assaults on the personhood, dignity, sense of worth or value of the victim. The social and cultural dimensions of violence are what gives [sic] violence its power and meaning. (p.1) Violence also has a temporal dimension in that the effects of physical and cultural violence can be inherited by successive generations well after an initial act of trauma is inflicted (Argenti & Schramm, 2010; Hirsch, 1997; Kuhn, 1995). Memory studies, as a scholarly field of research, is very much influenced by issues surrounding the remembrance of and memory practices associated with the Holocaust. Owing to its nature as an iconic event of acute and persistent trauma, examining the Holocaust in terms of memory practices means considering a range of media and modes of expression. Lawrence Langer (1991) and Shoshana Felman and Dori Laub (1992), in particular, explore the ongoing impact of the Holocaust through survivors testimonies decades after the fact. Those born after the event are not immune to violence of the Holocaust. Marianne Hirsch (1997) uses the term postmemory to describe the mediated remembrance of an event that occurs through imaginative investment (p.22). For Hirsch and others (including Liss, 1998; Sontag, 1977; and Zelizer, 1998), photographs connected to the Holocaust, even in the most tangential of ways, have the potential to deeply unsettle a viewers own understanding of self in a world where the Holocaust occurred and was subsequently documented, even though they were born after the event itself. Monuments and memorials are another means of remembering the Holocaust, though the debates over inclusion and the representational and memorial authority of the monuments creators are rarely evidenced in the final products (Linenthal, 1995; Young, 1993). A potential point of connection between the varied modes of evaluating historical trauma is their relationship to a specific mnemonic community. As Eviatar Zerubavel (2004) points out, collective mnemonic communities are deeply invested in producing and reproducing particular interpretations about the past. This notion of recreating social forms is a common theme in memory studies (Connerton, 1989; Halbwachs, [1924] 1992). Media plays a key role in the circulation and regulation of collective memories: newspapers (Anderson, 1991), photographic and television images (Sturken, 1997) and memorials (Borg, 1991; Mayo, 1998; Winter, 1998) all contribute to propagating and promoting agendas, often in support of a larger collective project of nationalism. Conflicts, both civil (Blair, 2004; Conway, 2010) and international ((Ashplant et al., 2000; Lowenthal, 1985; Olick, 2003; Vance, 1997; Winter, 1995) are regularly described as critical nation-building events. However, these national memorial practices rarely include accounts which run counter to the dominant narrative. Groups who are recognized as culturally, socially or politically other to the dominant community (in terms of population, force, and or legislative power) are excluded and at times erased from the national body. In Canada, as in other settler nations, indigenous peoples were denied citizenship and categorized as wards of the state.  This movement to objectify problematic bodies reduces subjects against [their] will and implies that [they] no longer [exist] in any active social relationship to others (Jackson, 2002, p.45). Similar objectifications have occurred in Canada for centuries including the expulsion of the Acadian community from what is now Nova Scotia in the 1700s and the imposition of the Chinese Head Tax and Exclusion around the turn of the twentieth century. These acts of objectification continue to have contemporary impact. As Kirsten McAllister (2010) notes in her work on the Nikkei Internment Memorial Centre commemorating the disenfranchisement and internment of Japanese Canadians during the Second World War, the denial of subject-hood and the inability to recognize historical and political violence is felt across generations. Re-claiming and re-asserting ones subjectivity necessitates an institutional acknowledgement of past trauma. Both McAllister (2010) and Adrienne Burk (2010) speak to how marginalized groups negotiate bureaucratic frameworks to bring forward their difficult pasts and make them public in accordance with and respect for the particular practices of that group. However, not all traumatic memories can be made public. In some cases, the violence suffered renders victims incapable of expressing not only their contemporary subject positions; it can also inhibit the articulation of memories related to the trauma (Caruth, 1995; Herman, 1997; Humphrey, 2002; Jackson, 2002). When an individual cannot express his or her suffering in such a way that it is recognized and acknowledged by another, the memory of the inexpressible trauma can manifest as a pathology (Herman, 1997, p.1; Jackson, 2002, p.40). While a political climate of acknowledgement and apology can help to facilitate the recognition of subjects who have suffered and subjects who continue to suffer (Barkan, 2001; Hodgkin & Radstone, 2003; Karstedt, 2009), choosing a form of expression that can appropriately convey a remembered experience (particularly in the case of trauma and difficult memories) presents a new challenge for subjects struggling to communicate what they remember. Practices and Strategies As memory studies emerged as a distinct area of academic study in the later twentieth century, a particular focus on textual expression and textual representation was central to the field. Francis Yates (1966) seminal work The Art of Memory discusses mnemonic techniques from antiquity to the Enlightenment and the increasing influence of writing and visual representations to recall cultural and religious information. The interest in linguistic and literary interpretation through the 1970s and 1980s in a number of humanistic disciplines and the role of language in social structures emphasized a particular type of scholarship based on reading. Despite its interdisciplinary range, textual interpretation cannot account for all memory practices. As Barbie Zelizer (1995) notes, there is a diverse repertoire of different agents of mediation that are called upon in memorial practices (p.232). Zelizer also states that while language does play an important role in memorial meaning-making, memory looks for other carriers and its enunciation has therefore gone beyond language (p.233). This movement beyond language is evident in memorial practices associated with the Holocaust. Following the Second World War concentration camp survivors including Charlotte Delbo (1968), Primo Levi (1961), and Elie Wiesel (1982) wrote memorial autobiographical accounts. Beginning in 1979, Laurel Vlock and Dori Laub used video to record the testimony of thousands of Holocaust survivors (Fortunoff Video Archive for Holocaust Testimonies). However, this impulse to archive, to create enduring records of memory, cannot account for the silences that resist mediation (Antze & Lambek, 1996; Felman & Laub, 1992; Herman, 1997). Vlocks and Laubs work does demonstrate the beginning of a shift toward visual and embodied memorial practices. A number of scholars in the 1990s took up critical analysis of non-textual practices at work in art, monuments, photography, and material culture (including: Bal et al., 1999; Kuhn, 1995; Sturken, 1997; Young, 1993). Yet, while these scholars expanded the range of what constitutes material memorial practices, semiotic analysis still held sway in determining how these practices were interpreted. Returning to the issue of recognition and acknowledgement of anothers traumatic experience, interpretative frameworks developed to make sense of memorial practices can lead away from how those practices function as communicative interfaces between people (Jackson, 2002, p.252). Jill Bennetts writing in Empathic Vision: Affect, Trauma, and Contemporary Art (2005) turns attention to the moments of physiological discomfort, of unsettlement, when encountering art that serves as that interface between remembered trauma and public recognition. What Bennett points to is the affective resonance of memorial practices that resist categorical interpretation. Bennett also cautions that the search in meaning in memorial practices precludes the potential for experiencing the remembered pain that is communicated via these practices. Commenting on the work of artist Justin Kramer, Bennett suggests that his pieces on bodily suffering demonstrate the failure of thought to connect (2006, p.35). Engaging with a piece like Kramers demands a response on a sensory and emotional level that cannot be reached through an objective critical reading. In their study of American attitudes towards history and memory, Roy Rosenzweig and David Thelen (1998) conclude that a common desire across racial, ethnic, immigrant populations is the opportunity to engage with the past on a personal and sensory level. Rosenzweig and Thelen also note that through experience comes the possibility of developing a moral sympathy for others (p.206). People attend museums, historical recreations, and listen to the personal memories of others precisely because they offer an opportunity to recognize, recall, interrogate, and empathize (ibid. p.38) to take make a connection with another persons experience brings about a reflection on ones own actions towards others. Similarly, Alison Landsberg (2004) contends that mass media representations of the past documentaries, films, museum exhibitions and historical attractions do offer particular expressions about the past and focus on particular memories. However, Landsberg suggests that precisely because these expressions are available to a wide public (including anyone who chooses to pay the price of admission) an opportunity exists for the creation of non-essentialist alliances between individuals of various religious, linguistic, racial, and geographical boundaries. By acknowledging that memories are never formless (Wagner-Pacifici, 1996, p.302), but are enacted and made visible through complex processes of negotiation that reflect the concerns of the present rather than any historical truth, it becomes clear that no one method can adequately account for the diverse number of memory expressions and representations. Memories of trauma and historical violence are in some ways homeless memories that cannot take on a material form which accurately represents the profound sense of loss (Tota, 2001, p.202). These homeless memories, particularly in the case of remembering events where the victims and can no longer speak, are among the most contested of memories because there is no opportunity to establish a subjective relationship with those who have suffered. When homeless memories are given a place to rest, whether literally in the form of a public memorial or figuratively when they are included in public discourse, they can be them be recognized by active subjects who call upon these memories to participate more fully in social, cultural, and political life. Conclusion Bal writes that concepts are always in a process of becoming, a process that involves developing relations with other concepts situated on the same plane (2002, p.51). In this definition I have used Bals notion of the travelling concept to open a discussion on contested memory, subjectivity, and representation. These three concepts are related, particularly with respect to the remembrance and expression of historical violence. In his essay, Landscapes of Memory, Laurence Kirmayer writes that narrative is an insufficient container or organizer for traumatic experience that is simultaneously a conveyor of structure, smoothing, and holding [while] also creat[ing] crevasses, ruptures, emptiness, and deep wells of non-being (186). Narrative has played and continues to play and influential role in memory studies; however, it is not the only form of communicating the past and like every form, it has its limits. Violence, whether physical or structural, damages subjective agency and that damage can cross generational and geographic boundaries (Felman & Laub, 1992; Jackson, 2002). Remembering difficult pasts cannot alleviate suffering and undo trauma. However, when contested memories are given form in writing, in monuments, in art, in embodied actions, and emotions they have the potential to act as a communicative interface, a starting point for dialogic exchange built upon the acknowledgement of another persons experience. Bibliography Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism. New York: Verso, 1991. Antze, Paul and Michael Lambek, eds. Tense Past: Cultural Essays in Trauma and Memory. New York: Routledge, 1996. Arendt, Hannah. The Human Condition. [1958]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998. Argenti, Nicholas and Katharina Schramm, eds. Remembering Violence: Anthropological Perspectives on Intergenerational Transmission. New York: Berghahn Books, 2010. Ashplant, T.G., Graham Dawson, and Michael Roper, eds. The Politics of War Memory and Commemoration. London: Routledge, 2000. Assmann, Aledia and Sebastian Conrad (eds.). Memory in a Global Age: Discourses, Practices and Trajetories. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. Bal, Mieke. Travelling Concepts in the Humanities: A Rough Guide. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2002. Bal, Mieke, Jonathan V. Crewe, and Leo Spitzer, eds. Acts of Memory: Cultural Recall in the Present. Hanover: University Press, of New England, 1999. Barkan, Elazar. The Guilt of Nations: Restitution and Negotiating Historical Injustices. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001. Bennett, Jill. Empathic Vision: Affect, Trauma, and Contemporary Art. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2005. Bennett, Jill. The Aesthetic of Sense Memory. Eds. Susannah Radstone and Katherine Hodgkin. Memory Cultures: Memory, Subjectivity and Recognition. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2006. 27 39. Blair, William Alan. Cities of the Dead: Contesting the Memory of the Civil War in the South. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2004. Borg, Alan. War Memorials from Antiquity to the Present. London: Leo Cooper, 1991. Burk, Adrienne. Speaking for a Long Time: Public Space and Social Memory in Vancouver. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2010. Canning, Kathleen. Feminist History after the Linguistic Turn: Historicizing Discourse and Experience. Signs 19.2 (1994): 368-404. Web. Caruth, Cathy, eds. Trauma: Explorations in Memory. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1995. Castellano, Marlene Brant, Linda Archibald, and Mike DeGagne, eds. From Truth to Reconciliation Transforming the Legacy of Residential Schools. Ottawa: Aboriginal Healing Foundation, 2008. Connerton, Paul. How Societies Remember. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Conway, Brian. Commemoration and Bloody Sunday: Pathways of Memory. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. Delbo, Charlotte. None of Us will Return. Trans. John Githens. New York: Grove Press, 1968. Duranti, Alessandro. Husserl, Intersubjectivity and Anthropology. Anthropological Theory 10.1-2 (2010): 16-35. Web. Felman, Shoshana and Dori Laub. Testimony: Crises of Witnessing in Literature, Psychoanalysis and History. New York: Routledge, 1992. Foley, Douglas E. Critical Ethnography: The Reflexive Turn. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 15.4 (2002): 469-490. Web. Fornier, Suzanne. Stolen from Our Embrace: the Abduction of First Nations Children and the Restoration of Aboriginal Communities. Vancouver: Douglas & MacIntyre, 1997. Fortunoff Video Archive for Holocaust Testimonies. Yale University Library. Web. 15 May 2011. Goldberg, Theo David and Ato Quayson, eds. Relocating Postcolonialism. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2002. Halbwachs, Maurice. On Collective Memory. [1925] Ed. and Trans. Lewis A. Coser. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992. Herman, Judith. Trauma and Recovery: The Aftermath of Violence from Domestic Abuse to Political Terror. London: Pandora, 1997. Hirsch, Marianne. Family Frames: Photography, Narrative and Postmemory. Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1997. Hodgkin, Katherine and Susannah Radstone, eds. Contested Pasts: The Politics of Memory. New York: Routledge, 2003. Hoskins, Andrew, Amanda Barnier, Wulf Kansteiner, and John Sutton. Editorial. Memory Studies 1.1 (2008): 5-7. Web. Humphrey, Michael. The Politics of Atrocity and Reconciliation: from Trauma to Terror. London, Routledge, 2002. Karstadt, Susanne, ed. Legal Institutions and Collective Memories. Portland: Hart Publishing, 2009. Kirmayer, Laurence J. Landscapes of Memory: Trauma, Narrative, and Dissociation. Tense Past: Cultural Essays in Trauma and Memory. Ed. Paul Antze and Michael Lambek. New York: Routledge, 1996. 173-98. Kuhn, Annette. Family Secrets: Acts of Memory and Imagination. London: Verso, 1995. Landsberg, Alison. Prosthetic Memory. New York: Columbia University Press, 2004. Langer, Lawrence. Holocaust Testimonies: The Ruins of Memory. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1991. Levi, Primo. Survival in Auschwitz: The Nazi Assault on Humanity. Trans. Stuart Woolf. New York: Collier Books, 1961. Linenthal, Edward T. Preserving Memory: The Struggle to Create Americas Holocaust Museum. New York: Columbia University Press, 1995. Liss, Andrea. Trespassing through Shadows: Memory, Photography and the Holocaust. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1998. Lowenthal, David. The Past is a Foreign Country. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. Mageo, Jeannette Marie. Cultural Memory : Reconfiguring History and Identity in the Postcolonial Pacific. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2001. Mathur, Ashok, Jonathan Dewar, and Mike DeGagn, eds. Cultivating Canada: Reconciliation through the Lens of Cultural Diversity. Ottawa: Aboriginal Healing Foundation, 2011. Mayo, James M. War memorials as political landscape : the American experience and beyond. New York: Praeger, 1988. McAllister, Kirsten Emiko. Terrain of Memory: A Japanese Canadian Memorial Project. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2010. Nora, Pierre. Between Memory and History: Les Lieux des Mmoire. Representations 26 (1989). 7-24. Print. Purbick, Louise, Jim Aulich and Graham Dawson, eds. Contested Spaces: Sites, Representation and Histories of Conflict. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007. Radstone, Susannah. Memory Studies: For and against. Memory Studies 1.1 (2008):31-39. Web. Rosenzweig, Roy and David Thelen. The Presence of the Past: Popular Uses of History in American Life. New York: Columbia University Press, 1998. Scheper-Hughes, Nancy and Philippe Bourgois, eds. Violence in War and Peace: An Anthology. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2004. Sontag, Susan. On Photography. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1977. Stewart, Kathleen. A Space on the Side of the Road: Cultural Poetics in an Other America. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996. Sturken, Marita. Tangled Memories: The Vietnam War, the AIDS Epidemic, and the Politics of Remembering. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997. Tota, Anna Lisa. Homeless Memories: How Societies Forget Their Past. Studies in Communication Sciences 1 (2001): 193-214. Web. Vance, Jonathan. Death so Noble: Memory, Meaning, and the First World War. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1997. Wagner-Pacifici, Robin. Memories in the Making: The Shapes of Things That Went. Qualitative Sociology 19.3 (1996): 301-321. Web. Wagner, Roy. An Anthropology of the Subject: Holographic Worldview in New Guinea and its Meaning and Significance for the World of Anthropology. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001. Walkowitz, Daniel J. and Lisa Maya Knauer, eds. Contested Histories in Public Space: Memory, Race and Nation. Durham: Duke University Press, 2009. Wiesel, Elie. Night. New York: Bantam Books, 1982. Winter, Jay. Sites of Memory, Sites of Mourning: The Great War in European Cultural History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Yates, Francis. The Art of Memory. Chicago, Chicago University Press. Young, James E. The Texture of Memory: Holocaust Memorials and Meaning. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993. Younging, Gregory, Jonathan Dewar, and Mike DeGagn, eds. Response, Responsibility, and Renewal Canadas Truth and Reconciliation Journey. Ottawa: Aboriginal Healing Foundation, 2009. Zelizer, Barbie. Reading the Past Against the Grain: The Shape of Memory Studies. Critical Studies in Mass Communication 12.2 (1995): 214 - 239. Web. Zelizer, Barbie. Remembering to Forget: Holocaust Memory through the Cameras Eye. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998. Zerubavel, Eviatar. Time Maps: Collective Memory and the Social Shape of the Past. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2004.  I use historical trauma here by drawing on two scholars: Judith Hermans (1997) notion of trauma as an event that destroys the belief that one can be oneself in relation to others (p.55); and Kirsten McAllisters (2010) discussion of political violence where institutional apparatuses can restrict human rights and either inadvertently or intentionally dismantle a groups socio-cultural, economic, and/or political institutions (p.12). Historical trauma can them be viewed both as an injury to a specific individual at a particular moment as well as the systematic perpetuation of unequal relationships. .  Jacksons (2002) work is very much informed by Hannah Arendts writing in The Human Condition, particularly her discussion of continual being and becoming as it is worked out in the human capacity for articulation and action. These modes of expression enable an individual to acknowledge and recognize another individual as part of a common humanity.  Bals definition of intersubjectivity is certainly not the only explanation of this well traveled concept. Edmund Husserl early twentieth century research into the philosophy of perception and understanding establishes intersubjectivity as a an overall theoretical frame for thinking about the ways in which humans interpret, organize, and reproduce particular forms of social life and social cognition (Duranti, 2010, p.18). As Duranti (2010) points out, various translations of the original German and multiple adaptations over time have resulted in Husserls name being associated with a discussion of intersubjectivity that is very much removed from the complex framework he proposed. I use Bals description of intersubjectivity here precisely because it accommodates complexity and speaks to the issues of power and generational trauma that will be addressed in this essay.  The late 1980s and the early 1990s are in some ways the formative era of memory studies a growing academic interest in interdisciplinary cultural studies and the beginning of a movement away from linguistic structuralism as a framework for understanding representations helped to contribute to the emergence of publications dedicated to issues of memory. One of publications is the journal History & Memory, established in 1989. The stated scope of the journal includes a broad interest in historical consciousness and collective memory with a specific interest in in the legacies of Nazism, fascism and the Holocaust, their impact on contemporary imagination and their diverse representations. Four decades after the event, one of the first journals dedicated specifically to issues of scholarly memory research considered the Holocaust as a foundational subject of study.  A growing area within memory studies focuses on post-colonial and transnational memory particularly how groups who migrate, by choice or by coercion, develop memory practices to address a shared past that crosses geographical, political, and temporal boundaries (Assmann & Conrad, 2010, Goldberg & Quayson, 2002; Mageo, 2001).  The 1876 Indian Act which accomplished this objectification is one of many policies that have dispossessed indigenous peoples others include various treaties which helped to establish a reservation system in Canada, outlawing cultural practices (including the 1884 potlatch ban), and creating a parallel school system for indigenous children which include residential school where children were forcibly removed from their communities, forbidden to speak their native languages, and in some cases suffered physical, sexual, and emotional abuse. See Suzanne Forniers and Ernie Creys (1997) work on the legacy of residential schools and the publications of the Aboriginal Healing Foundation (Castellano et al., 2008; Younging et al., 2009; Mathur et al., 2011) on movements towards reconciliation.  In an article that describes the scholarly shifts and counter-shifts associated with the linguistic turn, Kathleen Canning (1994) writes that the very phrase is a catch-all for divergent critiques of established historical paradigms, narratives, and chronologies, encompassing not only poststructuralist literary criticism, linguistic theory, and philosophy but also cultural and symbolic anthropology, new historicism, and gender history (p. 369).      PAGE 1 "    5 U V z % :TmI_W_k¾¾غض|h 3hzA/hBqhi3hi36hahi36h| h|] hi3]hh8hi3h(h"5hfahM5hdwhZ>jhN$0JUhN$h hQJhhRhnqhkth vh v6h vhW0 +QR % ij12P O%%))//3338`gd/xm`gdw^gdj=gd vCq.I$%)*  BSs|>;ab A_`acdefh}NƼ踴谸쬨hfahh^hOLh&Kh/{hDWjhx0JUhxhjhw0JUhK$hwhBqhE:hR:hMhqhzA/h~)ho?NQQo/2P#)O; = !#!}!!!!!!"!"*"8"A""""i#m#z#####$$%Ⱦȶȶhe|{h-Uhp:h{hIh{hZyhLjh $ih1jh;0JUhShQhh-uhn;shj=hh&hh7hK$h&Kh^hfa9%&&&&&.'6'\))))))))))))*****+ +!+"+++,Q,R,O..//#///// 0z000001 11111^2γh hh+hFh77h4Ih^h# (hh"jh"0JUh"h"0Jh hg[hhp:jh]0JUh= h]h [hxnh7lh(Hnhw6^2222222w3333333334444n5U6V6888888888888889 99%9&999k;x;;;;;;;;; <ܾܺhuL[h$zohhO\hU'h2 6h2 h?0hb1h<hG79hqRhK$hN/YjhX0JUhXhh6hhh'SYh77hFhhmh^hg=688<<> A AFFgJhJsJ%P3P4PPPPQ Q!QzQ`gd 3gdj';`gdgd$a$gd `$a$gd `gdb`gd:gd v <<0<<==Z>>>>>!?_?h??@@@@A A A A AAAAAB B BBhBiBBBBBC(E2EFFRFYFZFFFnGGGGH-H.HHIIIظ̴̰h:Xh`hRhWhMh3v:hUhkDJh? _hohb[h qhczhLqAht=hdFhyh:hm!h5UhO\h9hN'h y6h yh2 h:IbJdJfJgJhJJ KK%K0K$LNlOmO P"P#P$P%P&P2P3P4PHPsPtPPPPPPPQ!Q1QDQ{QQQ!RXRwRxRRRR褜{h1 h'-6h'-h'-6h'-h~)h~)6h~)h|h|6h|h 3h 36 h6hrh6hh `h hQJhb[h{h2-hhb h 3h 3h 3h5hUhWhRh`.zQ{QQ R!RxRRRR3S4SSSST_?_E______ȼ{wsosgbgs hi36hahi36hxLhi3hnqhnqhnq6hnqh v6h vh9)h6hhv hv6h^h^6h^hqh -h 6h hJH hJH 6hJH hU'hU'hU'hU'hU'6h{ h{h{ h{\ h{6\h{h{6\&\\@]R]S]]]]*^S^T^^^^&_>_?____`gd`gdi3gdi3`gdnqgd v`gd`gdv`gd gd ^gdJH gd__ `(`?`i````aa@aSa[a\a`akaaaaaaaabb?bkbxbbböyuqiqe]eYQYh<h<6h<hLjhLj6hLjhxht=6ht=hh5Y>6Oϴ5>ϴϴ2-ϴ2-2-6Oϴ2-2-ϴ2-=ϴ==6Oϴ=ϴ^^6Oϴ^ϴ'(````ڲaaղbbb7᳦쳦¸<`gdLjgdi3^gd2-gd2-`gdg=gdg=gd`gd^bb6c7c=ckcycccd dRdjdtd|d}ddddddddd!eDeEekeeeefff+fbfffff½ӯyuqmh]-h1hh$h$6h$h'-h'-5\ h'-\h'-h'-6\h'- h}>6h}>h}>6h}>hJH hJH 5\ hJH \hJH hJH 6\ hJH 6\hJH hb\h6hh{h{6h{ hW`6hW`hW`6hW`'kccccJdQdRddddEeeeeffeffffgdLj^gd`gd$`gd'-gd'-`gd}>`gdJH gdJH `gdgd`gd{gdi3ffg g g?ggghggggggg h,hahbhohhhhi-i;i`igihiii|iiiijOjPj[jjjjjjjƾƵ|xpk hM6hMhM6hM h:=6h:=h:=6h:=hh]h]6h]hlhah{6h{h ]}h ]}6h ]} ht=6h {ht=6ht=hhi36hqhi36hi3 hLj6hohLj6hLjh1h]-h]-h]-6*f g ghgggh h hbhhhhiihiiiiiiPj`gd]gd v`gd ]}gd ]}`gdt=gdt=`gdi3gdi3`gdLjgdLj`gd]-Pjjjjkkikkkkllvlll=msmtmmmn3n`gd]gd]`gdo^gd]`gdU`gd`gdMgd v`gd:=jjk#k[kkkkl)lulvlllm`gdwgdw`gd{`gdkDJgdkDJ^gd{gd{`gdW`gd{'oEoFoToUowooopp"pApRppppqBqCqDqqqmrrssssssss tuuxx{{û÷~wowbwbwjh&hn0JUh&hn6 h&hnh|hnCJaJ!jh|hn0JCJUaJ hZ>hnhZ>hn6hnjhn0JUh/hwhw6hwh{h{6h{ hkDJ6hM#hkDJ6hkDJh{h{h{6o( h{6h{h{6&ux{{C}e-.0134679:;<GHIJ$a$gdl$a$gdlgd"gd;{}B}C}D}ef-./124578:<=CDEFHIJӬh/h,0JmHnHu hn0Jjhn0JUjh3IUh3Ijhn0JU h&hnjh&hn0JU h]hnhn21h:p%/ =!"#$% @@@  vNormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH Z@Z '- Heading 1$<@&5CJ KH OJQJ\^JaJ DA@D Default Paragraph FontRiR  Table Normal4 l4a (k(No List>@> w Footnote TextCJaJ@&@@ wFootnote ReferenceH*bOb Default 7$8$H$-B*CJOJQJ^J_HaJmH phsH tH B'!B  $iComment ReferenceCJaJ<2<  $i Comment TextCJaJ@j12@  $iComment Subject5\HRH  $i Balloon TextCJOJQJ^JaJ*W@a* :=Strong5\4U@q4 JH Hyperlink >*ph4@4 lHeader  !4 @4 lFooter  !.)@. l Page NumberU! #U.JzjA "Jz +QR% ij12P O!!''+++00446 9 9>>gBhBsB%H3H4HHHHI I!IzI{II J!JxJJJJ3K4KKKKLW?WWWWX'X(XXXXX[Y\YYYZZ]ZjZkZZZZ7[j[k[[[[J\Q\R\\\\E]]]]^^e^^^^ _ _h___` ` `b````aahaiaaaaPbbbbcciccccddvddd=eseteeef3f4fzf{ffffFgggh@hAhhhhiBiCikkmpssCuex-z.z0z1z3z4z6z7z9z:z;z!JJJJ3KKLLlPRRSFSGSS8TTTTUUVVWXXXYYZJ\Q\R\\E]]]^^e^^^ _` ` `b``3ffffggh@hKzj00j00j00j00%j00$j00"j00j00j00\j00j0 0j090"j00j00 tj00j00j00j00 j00 j00j00j00j00j00j00j00j00j00j00j00j00j00j0&0'Gpj0&0j0&0@0j00j00j00Zj0 0j00 @00j00 8j00 j00@00j0(0j0(0j0(0 j0(0j0(0j0 0j050 6hIpj050 j050 j00@0j00j00j00j0+0,j0+0j0+00 N%^2 <IRX\_bfj'o{JBEFGHJKMOQSUWZ\^8zQ#U+Y\`kcfPj3nuJCILNPRTVXY[]ID!<"!!!|"!|!!<%!\\l?@A,BlCDE,FlGHI,JlKLM,Nl""##$m$m$55HHIINIWIWIeIJJJJKKvKvKKKKK L(LLLLLLMMuNuNNNN@O@OLOWOWOeODPUPUPPPTQ_Q_QiQQQ)R)R+S+S_T_TTTT-U-UUUUUU?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijlkmnpoqrstuvxwyz{|}~""##$x$x$55HH I IUIaIlIlIJJJJKK}K}KKKKKL3LLLLLLMMNNNNNIOIOUOaOuOuOMP\P\PQQ]QhQsQsQQQ1R1R3S3ShThTTTT3U3UUUUUUBVBVVVVVV*W*WXXsXsX@Y@YYYYYYYJZPZ[Z[ZZZZ)[)[G[Q[\[\[[[[[+\6\A\A\\\\\3]3]s]s]]]n^z^^^^^_y````````EaEaaaaaaebqbbbfcfcsccc'd'dldldddddTeTeeeff%f%fgfrfrffffffgghhhhii)i4i4ikkKz !" #$%&'()*+,-/.0123456879:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijlkmnpoqrstuvxwyz{|}~=*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceType=*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceNameB*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagscountry-region8*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCity9*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsState9*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace p)rzm r u { k{W^jrs{ OSmtr{'./8%. ((******..Q/X/0000A1F1K1O1P1T111P2U2X2^2f2l2o2s2222233R9\9g9m9 :::!:;;<<D>L>@@K@KJKKK=LCLELKLzMMPPlPvPPP+Q4QQQ R'RGRNRRRRRRRRR5S>SSStT}TTTTUU UU+USU\UUUVV,W5WWW^W`WdWeWoWXX(X0XXXY"Y/Y5YBYKYYYZZk[o[[[R\W\\\]]^^^^^^ __ _&___ ``$`*`````aaabbbccddee|eeffg gggAhHhhhhhBiCimmnnnnoou u&u-u5u:utw}wwwwxxx+x1x-z.z.z0z0z1z1z3z4z6z7z9z:z[y[[s\{\\\E]L]]]h_k___`` `+`b`p`-a>>>??AԤ%0:侱kk-..001134679:Ύ        P r=## .Ci#djk9l <kt1F7"5JH 2 = } > 3  j=^m!)AY\p] #bxn&:+W`s3'-u]9z6`q } N$%U''# (~)t*)+,u,'-2-]-u.\:/zA/H/j0?0b1v2 3K4J35b?69G79E:R:3v:j';'#<t=:=Z>}>k?-ALqA]BglCDyFdGAgGI3IkDJQJ&KOLAMLEOQqR-UTW:XN/Y0Y'SY [uL[b[O\JQ\]^? __R_AT_ `-`faQc_/dLd-sdDff $iLjGl7l/xm(Hn$zo qnqn;skt vG`vwkwxZy>z/{e|{|| ]}n~7p/i3i?5UdFWSMX4I^'U 7cz 12d@Rlh!%Xb=k}5q{{noW\F`77[[n&p:{ Qg[l"Mxy`(,81C3{=R_ %|vBq :o$%7!qdwDl-P y;m*xLM5{DWw,]9Ig=( K$^CiEiKz U @XX$XXJz@UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial; CodeCode5& zaTahoma?5 z Courier New['Lucida GrandeCourier New;Wingdings"1h{f{fY5Y5!x4dii2qHP ? v2 9 May 2011Megan RobertsonMegan Robertson  Oh+'0  < H T`hpx 9 May 2011Megan RobertsonNormalMegan Robertson2Microsoft Office Word@@N=T+@N=T+Y՜.+,0 hp|   5i  9 May 2011 Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_abcdefgijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry F@;a+Data `1TablehlWordDocument4SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjq  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q