ICRS Yogya
Class of History of Religion in
Dr. Bernard Adeney-Risakotta
Dr. Sri Margono
Assignment week 1
Abraham S. Wilar
Historical Memory in Contemporary
A Critical Response to Mary S. Zurbuchen’s Article
Mary’s article which has discussed the transitional period of historical shifting paradigm taken place in contemporary
The first point I would like to discuss is on the history-making process. From her article I have actually come to conclude that the discussion of history must have been in relation to a problem of selecting both information or stories and personal ‘taste’ to select which of those information have the most relevant to one’s concern. Here the process of making history includes of what Ricoer has named as ‘documentation of selective memory’, and the history generated from this process must have contained certain one’s concern. Therefore I believe that the history has a close relation to personal taste, which means one’s concern might have influenced and probably generated certain history in his or her own way. Therefore, the history-making is composed both by personal concern and by selection. This is the point which I think Mary’s article has not been addressed.
Another point which I think important to be addressed here is about the problem of forgetting. I think it has a close relation to personal judgment where the issue of like or dislike might have been included, as one has come and tried to forget certain history in his or her life which has brought certain pain. It also has a close connection to a problem of brain capacity in remembering. However, it also relates to cultural taboo where, for example, a painful memory must not be exploited to public as it has resulted to more pain to certain people or all people in one region. In short, as I address this point, I have question whether the history which has got acknowledgment from many people is still considered as history although the forgotten part of it has not been included yet. Can we call things remembered as history while the forgotten things not included? Or, does this have a relation to problems of acknowledgment and approval from majority?
As I have described my points above, I actually still have a concern on how history built, and what actually the meaning of history as we include the issues of personal judgment, selecting process, and the weaknesses of brain in remembering things, three essential elements which have composed of history. Or, as has suggested by Ricoer, we actually deal with a range of meanings while talking about history. First, history as well-documented chronologies, second, history as meaningful and personal story of one community or one individual, and so forth.
History can be categorized into two; history as event and history as memory. Event will not automatically become history, it become history only when historian put it into writing. So when we talk about history actually is no longer history as event but more history as memory, which is reconstructed again by historian in writing. The truth about history as event is absolute but disappear together with the event, and the truth in the history as memory is always subjective or even false. It depend on the evident which are collected by historian to support his or her writing.
BalasHapus