Sustaining acquiescent expressions of cultural remembrances and symbols in public spaces – like colonial relics such as Queen Victoria in Republic Square (above) – one could ask whether contemporary Maltese citizens are suffering from a historical malady. Photo: Viewingmalta

Recently this newspaper carried articles on ‘collective memory’ (most recent on September 12) the text of which focused more on tangible heritage, rather than what the term means in the world of social science.

Memory, as most people know, refers to what we remember or commemorate; the term ‘collective memory’ refers to a particular academic discipline related to the politics of identity. Since, in a community, archives are mostly produced by the ruling class, national memory, as recollected by dominated generations, often calls for contestation.

For the sake of clarity I believe it may be beneficial, for academics, journalists and media users, to comprehend discourse connected to such an aspect of social analysis which normally also includes all that a community conserves.

While psychologists seem to view collective memories as shared personal recollections, social scientists tend to treat collective memories as representations located ‘in the world outside the individual’. It is in society, through commemorations, rituals, monuments, text and images that people normally acquire, recall, recognise and localise their memories. Scholars believe that memory can never be separated from social influences, such as those transmitted through media products. Mnemonic communities remember things that they never personally experienced – they can only adopt interpretations that might have suited previous generations.

In recent years memory studies have been exploring the past through a process of invention and appropriation, addressing the relationship of power within society. Politics of memory has emerged as a leading theme in the growing body of literature about memory. Memory could be viewed as a subjective experience of a social group to sustain relationships within and outside society. As Peter Burke would put it, “it is who wants whom to remember what and why”.

The literature on collective memory offers an extremely wide range of sources presenting research, critical evaluations and interpretative works referring to diverse themes such as symbolic places or cultural expressions of collective memory like regions, monuments, commemorative ceremonies, social habits and well-known personalities as well as political powers, movements and institutions.

The pervasiveness of the concept ‘collective memory’ in both academic and political discourses has produced a corpus of definitions, theories and debates that established, often challenged, this new phenomenon into becoming one of history’s colossal collaborators and critics. The remarkable interest shown in collective memory since the 1980s may be attributed to a rising preoccupation with dissolving collective identities in the face of new historical realities – globalisation, gender relations and a media electronic revolution with significant implications for the organisation of knowledge.

French philosopher and sociologist Maurice Halbwachs, the father of collective memory, during the first half of the 20th century published two studies on the subject provoking other historians and philosophers including Eric Hobsbawm in the United Kingdom, Michael Kammen and Jeffrey Olick in the United States, Yael Zerubavel on Israeli traditions and Reinhart Koselleck in Germany.

As expected French consciousness of social memory was strongly aroused in the country of the Enlightenment itself with Pierre Nora publishing a seven-volume exposition on the ‘sites of memory’ discussing nationalism, memory and identity. Paul Ricoeur, another French philosopher, followed with a thought-provoking treatise on memory, history and forgetfulness. The latter volume published in 2000, was edited by Emmanuel Macron in his pre-political life as assistant to the scholar.

Maltese society could today be a victim of what one could call a forgetful or blocked memory

The emergence of multiculturalism in a world in search of democratisation seems to have aroused a new awareness of one’s national identity in an atmosphere of diversity. Researchers from different countries seem to be putting their own social collective memories under the lens to find out more about the characteristics that unite their communities in seeking a forward-looking path.

In the wake of this social transformation of modernity, independent Malta appears to have embarked on its own search for a place in a world of complex interactions of national, international and supranational politics. During such a transition Malta’s inhabitants can hardly refrain from self-defining and identifying themselves as new members of a post-colonial community. They tend to commemorate and monumentalise traces of past milieux in order to perpetuate tradition and maintain collective identities.

Focusing on points of national heritage, Maltese citizens seem to be engaged in interpreting historical symbols by using various social props to remember collectively and selectively past experiences in the hope of achieving social cohesion through memory.

As this observer sees it, the challenge seems to concern the accuracy and faithfulness of this memory, ingredients which one may require in a society interested in sharing a common destiny. Over the past two centuries, occasions for passive and active collective remembering and inventing traditions by dominant institutions, namely the British colonial rulers and to a certain extent the Catholic Church, could have significantly contributed to form Malta’s present perceived identity.

As a result Maltese society could today be a victim of what one could call a forgetful or blocked memory. Due to its enduring ‘loyalty’ to a British historical past – seen by some as superior to their native legacy – and sustaining acquiescent expressions of cultural remembrances and symbols in the public space – like colonial relics such as Queen Victoria in Republic Square, the George Cross on the flag – one could ask whether contemporary Maltese citizens are suffering from a historical malady that could be perverting the social relationship between past experience and future expectation.

Is this threatening the vigorous development of a national identity that best represents all?

Following a trauma which left thousands dead during the 1798-1800 blockade of the French, the British, often with the apparent consent of the Church, imposed a new identity on the Maltese community creating an overwhelming predilection among the populace in favour of the new rulers. This was reinforced after World War II, this time obliterating the centuries-old Italianate culture, to be replaced by English hegemony.

The past is carved to suit present dominant interests. The institutionalisation of remembrance produces memories that in turn serve the current purposes of those in power to establish social cohesion, legitimising authority and socialising populations in a common culture. This is where journalists play a vital role in the formation of a community’s identity.

American media scholar Barbie Zelizer (2008) strongly presents the case for the connection between memory and journalism. Journalism needs memory work to position its recounting of public events in context; on the other hand memory needs journalism to present the past.

While the past is seen as being outside the parameters of journalists’ attention, it could certainly be considered as being ‘history’s first draft’, given the overall association of their respect for truth, facts and reality. Historians often undertake the final processing of journalism’s raw events. The media, as an actor negotiating a role in collective memory, hosts a rich repository of current events feeding history.

The nation is the sentiment through which the citizen expresses trust and fidelity to the State. Perhaps the time has come, even for Malta, to digest Ricoeur’s words, when he points out that “to weave a narrative identity is thus to transform a past that is beyond one’s control into a past for which we are responsible, and to recognise the inter-subjective nature of that past”.

Charles Xuereb is the author of France in the Maltese Collective Memory, Perceptions, Perspectives, Identities after Bonaparte in British Malta (2014).