Les cadres sociaux de la mémoire

by Maurice Halbwachs

Héritier et critique de Durkheim, Maurice Halbwachs (1877-1945) fut le véritable initiateur et théoricien de la sociologie de la mémoire. Parue pour la première fois en 1925, son étude des Cadres sociaux de la mémoire a profondément influencé les historiens et les sociologues; elle retrouve toute son importance aujourd'hui que la question de la mémoire collective s'impose plus que jamais.

La présente édition est accompagnée d'une postface de Gérard Namer, professeur de sociologie à l'université de Paris-VII et auteur d'un essai sur la pensée de Halbwachs (Mémoire et société, Paris, 1987), qui, grâce à une lecture des cahiers laissés par l'auteur, éclaire son oeuvre d'un jour nouveau.

Genres: Sociology, Nonfiction, History, Philosophy, Theory, Psychology, Anthropology

374 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1925

Reviews

[Mike Rancourt · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you're starting to get interested in collective memory, you should read this early on. I try to keep in mind that Halbwachs is mostly interested in what is now called social memory (which is a subgenre of collective memory, so I am not saying he is wrong). The field has come a long way since this text was written, and collective memory scholars owe a great deal to Halbwachs.

[Aslihan · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a highly referred text on collective memory, therefore I read it as a preliminary reference for my research. While it seems to be representative on the historical milieu it belongs to, its role in the existing literature on collective memory seems to be elementary. I find it important in the way it exposes the impact of the social milieu, and the social surroundings of the individual in the process of recollection, but today, especially in the age of post-truth, official histories being remade, and an alternative form of recollection and remembrance imposed by authoritarian governments, this narrative remains basic and needs to be supplemented with others. Also, although the text has been referred to as a sociological text, I think it lies somewhere between psychology and sociology, closer to the former than the latter. There is greater emphasis on individual in society but less emphasis on the social forces, the interactions among them and the way the collective is operational.

[Laura · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's incredible, given how foundational Halbwachs' work is to the field of memory studies and how often it's cited, that this seems to be the one & only English-language version of his unfinished opus that's in print. I'd welcome a different edition & translation, drawing from his earlier work as well as "Cadres sociaux..." (and without all the annoying typos in this one). Halbwachs' memory theory is philosophical rather than empirical in base, and I disagree with much of it. But it was transformative and still worth reading. I wonder how his thinking might have changed, had he not been one of the Holocaust's staggering number of victims.

[Beatriz · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Disso resulta que o pensamento social é basicamente uma memória, e que todo o seu conteúdo é feito de memórias coletivas, mas apenas permanecem presentes na sociedade aquelas memórias que a sociedade, trabalhando em seus quadros atuais, pode reconstruir."

[Andrew · Rating 4 out of 5]

A great theorist thinking about the foundational question of how humans maintain different memories. The book is dense, as Halbwachs was writing in the early 20th century in French (translated, of course, in this 1992 edition). However, it has many fundamental questions which are exciting to consider. I found his discussion of the difference between dreams and memories most engaging. Dreams are hard to remember because they are deeply personal, and it is impossible to engage your dreams with others. Memories, on the other hand, form through interactions with others. It is reminiscent of the debate in Phaedrus of speech versus text. Dreams are like text: you can only remind yourself of them. Memories, like speech, are gained through interactions with others, which may be as close to wisdom as you can get.

[Revanth Ukkalam]

Maurice Halbwachs builds on Durkheim’s conception of society as an organism – whose institutions direct its members back towards it (for example, by religion, society worships itself). Halbwachs extends Durkheim’s functionalism – in whose view social institutions not just strengthen bonds between members of society and enable society but also allow enable forms of life at the individual level - to the concept and category of memory and closes the circle; Halbwachs argues in sharp disagreement to the then-incipient field of psychology, that memory is not a merely (or even primarily) a cognitive function but a sociological one. One remembers, even events in one one’s own life, not because one is capable of having memory, but because people, rituals, institutions, and practices remind us and demand that we do not forget.

Short review: Thank you Halbwachs for kicking psychology in the nuts.

[Laikhuram · Rating 3 out of 5]

Somebody please help.

Page 168: "Introspection is defined by psychologists through opposition to the perception of material objects. It seems that in the latter we go outside ourselves and become partially fused with exterior things, whereas in the case of introspection we withdraw into ourselves. But this distinction makes sense only if we think of an isolated individual. IN THIS CASE WHAT WE REFER TO AS EXTERIOR IS ALL THAT IS EXTERIOR TO THE INDIVIDUAL'S BODY AND, BY EXTENSION, HIS BODY ITSELF-EXTERIOR TO WHAT WE BELIEVE IS HIS MIND. WE CALL INTERIOR ALL THAT WHICH IS NOT EXTERIOR TO THE BODY, AND, BY EXTENSION, TO THE MIND, THAT IS TO SAY, THE CONTENTS OF THE MIND ITSELF, ESPECIALLY OUR MEMORIES."

I cannot make sense of this latter capitalized* passage. Isn't Hawlbachs conflating the body with the mind here? Isn't the body (be it one's own) already an exterior? The body is exterior to the mind, that is what I understand of mind-body dualism. Is he here saying the mind is not the same as the contents of the mind? I am confused.

* By me

[Tomáš Kreuzinger · Rating 4 out of 5]

Inspired by a lecturer referencing the force of social memory in the orderings of the financial markets, I've booked this book in the Singel Library of UvA and headed home to read it. Not definitely light but neither is it a book that you ought to re-read several times to even grasp. tt is definitely a representative introduction into this specific subfield of sociology, at the times when sociology as a term had a very different meaning to what it's now. I'd recommend it to anyone wishing to be introduced into the field, with eye-opening takes on the construction of Christain thought, class differentiations and the layout of the Holy Land itelf and how its perception has changed across the ages.

[Marleen Mihhailova · Rating 5 out of 5]

It’s one of the most frequently cited works in the field, laying out the idea that memory is never just individual but always shaped by the social groups we belong to. Despite being published a century ago, the book is remarkably clear and easy to read, filled with concrete examples that make its insights accessible.

[Amer Hawwash · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the best books written about the collective memories, it drives you back through your memories helping you to understand many hidden aspects that you've never thought about, in some how you'll have better understanding of your memories and yourself at the same time.

[Jessica (JT) Thelen · Rating 3 out of 5]

Dated, but essential to those doing memory studies, as pretty much everyone in the field references this text.

[Sammi Slusher · Rating 5 out of 5]

An interesting read. I find myself wondering what sort of sources he used other than personal accounts for his research.

[Giovanni Gregory · Rating 4 out of 5]

Un maestro.

[Lisa · Rating 3 out of 5]

I thought this had a strong start theorizing how our memory making is influenced by our cultures. The second half (on familial and nobility influences on memory) was a bit boring.

[Jaana · Rating 3 out of 5]

Muistitietotutkimuksen "pakko lukea" -kirjoja, jos aikoo kaivautua juurille asti. Klassikko syystä, vaikka ikä alkaakin jo painaa.

[Ceilidh Monaghan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dated, but nonetheless foundational to memory studies despite even Halbwachs work coming a long way.

[Artemis · Rating 3 out of 5]

Hard one to review...
Some great concepts - written in an incredibly boring fashion.
I think I honestly missed out on pages at a time because I had to fight to stay engaged.

[Mark · Rating 4 out of 5]

Important but very difficult.

[Karen · Rating 3 out of 5]

I liked this, it made me think in completely new ways. I liked his intellectual explanation of the apostasy of the Catholic Church. My collective memory class all agreed that if Halbwachs had survived the Holocaust, his views of static collective memory would have been different.

[auria · Rating 2 out of 5]

21,41

[versarbre · Rating 4 out of 5]

It can be read together with Durkheim's Elementary Forms of religious life.

[Stephanie C. · Rating 2 out of 5]

It's simply outdated. Science proves it wrong. Nice source of inspiration nevertheless.