Hafızanın Toplumsal Çerçeveleri

by Maurice Halbwachs, Büşra Uçar (Translator)

“Toplumsalı sadece toplumsal olanla açıklamak”… Hafıza çalışmalarının modern babası olarak nitelenen Maurice Halbwachs, bu Durkheim’ci ilkeyi kendine şiar edinerek çıkar yola. Hafızanın Toplumsal Çerçeveleri, bu maharetli düşünürün, en çok tartışılmış ve hakkında en çok ihtilafa düşülmüş eseridir kuşkusuz. Halbwachs, bu kurucu eserinde, sosyolojinin nüfuz sahasını insanın total bilimi olarak temellendirmek amacıyla, onu en bireysel görülebilecek bir deneyim alanına sokar: “hafıza”, tıpkı başka tematikler üzerinden daha önce Durkheim’in İntihar’da yaptığı gibi ve çok daha sonraları da Bourdieu’nün “beğeni” üzerinden yapacağı gibi. Burada temel argüman, basit olduğu kadar kurucudur da: Felsefecilerin diliyle “kategoriler” veya farklı söylemek gerekirse tüm zihinsel şemalar “toplumsaldır”; hafıza ise, bu bağlamda, geçmişe ait dönemlerin bireysel düzeyde muhafazası değil, bunların kolektif surette bir yeniden üretimidir. Bu şekilde toplumsal, bireyselliği oluşturan şeyin kalbine kadar izini bırakır. Sonuç olarak, Yüzyılın ilk yarısının Fransız sosyologları arasında, bireyin toplumsal olarak izahını en ileriye taşımış düşünürlerden biridir Halbwachs. İlginç bir biçimde, Türk sosyolojisine oldukça erken bir dönemde, öğrencileri Ömer Lütfi Barkan ve Ziyaeddin Fahri Fındıkoğlu üzerinden nüfuz etmiş bir düşünürdür de o. 2016 yılında, talihsiz sayılabilecek bir gecikmenin ardından bugün Türkçede… Buyurunuz.

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

366 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1925

Reviews

[Mike Rancourt]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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.

[Yahya]

Bellek, Rüyalar, Anılar ve Hafıza üzerine okuduğum kitaplardan biri daha. Bu konuya özel ilgim olduğu için genelde okuduğum kitaplar içinde başka bir kitabı keşfedip onu okuma listeme alıyorum. Bu da onlardan biri. Diğerlerinden farkı önceki okuduğum kitaplar psikoloji, felsefe ve nörobilim alanı açısından yaklaşıyordu bu temalara. Ama bu kitap daha çok sosyolojik bir bakış açısı sunuyor. Bu da aslında ne kadar okunması gerektiğini hak ediyor. Daha önce okuduğum kitaplarda anılar ve düşler daha çok kişisel bir olgu olarak ele alınırken burada bunun içinde yaşadığımız toplumdan bağımsız olamayacağı öne sürülüyor. Yazar özellikle gördüğümüz rüyaların ve oluşturduğumuz anıların içinde bulunduğumuz aile, din, sınıf vs. kısacası toplumdan bağımsız olmadığını, özellikle anıları yeniden inşa ederken bu faktörlerin geçmişten günümüze anılarımız üzerinde etkili olduğunu ifade ediyor. Yani aslında hafızamın çerçevelerini oluşturan temel direklerin toplumun bu katmanları olduğunu düşünebiliriz. Kitapta bolca Durkheim ve Bergson'a atıf var. Özellikle bu Bergson'un Madde ve Bellek kitabını bundan önce okunursa daha faydalı olur.

[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]

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]

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.

[Amer Hawwash]

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]

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

[Sammi Slusher]

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

[Giovanni Gregory]

Un maestro.

[Lisa]

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]

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

[IDolciLibri]

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]

Important but very difficult.

[bananajo]

An interesting way to think about memory, language, and society.

(June 2026)

[caroline]

Man I love this book

[Marleen Mihhailova]

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.

[Karen]

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]

21,41

[versarbre]

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

[Stephanie C.]

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