Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Cultural Flavour of Collection

"White people don't know what to remember and what to forget, what to let go of and what to preserve."1 This is a quotation taken from David Loewenthal's The Past Possessed: The Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of History describing an Aboriginal interpretation of Western Culture’s desire and obsession with collecting. When I first read the quotation, I immediately pictured my bedroom at home filled with endless amounts of objects and materials I have been 'saving' for the past five to ten years. I know that I'll never need many of these items again, yet I just keep on saving them. While I do not necessarily agree that it is 'White people' per say that have trouble dealing with the issue of collecting, I believe it more to be a cultural phenomena amongst Western societies.

Lowenthal continues along this line of thought by suggesting that White people are unsure of their past and therefore strive to keep everything.2 This idea I can understand due to the massive amounts of migration in the European and consequently North American populations. With such a great dispersal of cultures, it only makes sense that a migrated community would want to preserve all the remnants of their native culture. People are always striving for continuity with the past so that they may easily trace back to their origins for a better understanding of their present selves. The reason for saving everything is that we fear losing our identities! Given our consumer driven culture of today, does it not then make sense that what we would want to keep everything from the grandeur to the mundane. Never in the history of the world have humans had such an abundant material culture. Given this cultural stipulation, I understand now why collections both by institutions and individuals are expanding at exponential rates. The more things we have, the more things we have to preserve.

The really interesting ideas that emerges from all of this are the 'why' factors. Why MUST we collect everything? Why do some cultures feel the need to preserve every artifact, yet others can simply throw them away without a second thought? Is it in our collective interest to preserve all aspects of material culture? Would it be more beneficial to society if we were able to collectively forget, or move on? I do not have the answers to these questions. I have already flirted with ideas about the migration of cultures, and even on cultural makeup as possible explanations. What I ultimately think is that it boils down to our cultural interpretation of what history means to us. For many Western Cultures we view history as a sequence of events with a logical start and end. We need to mark our position on the line of time so that our future generations will be able to discern information about our lives and learn from them. This also ties into the idea of immortality which is omnipresent in many western societies as we fear death more than anything (except for public speaking of course!). This is the discrepancy that Lowenthal's Aborigine points out. For non-Western cultures history has a different meaning which results in a different interpretation. I find it fascinating how culture can materialize itself in all facets of the human experience. I just never thought to relate my cultural definition to the mounds of objects I've hoarded in my room!

Notes.

1. David Lowenthal, The Past Possessed: The Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of History (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 29.

2. Ibid.

Sunday, September 20, 2009

Freedom of Information - Good or Bad?

The Office of the Historian of the United States of America has released another set of classified documents this following year. I find this practice fascinating as the most secretive inner workings of strategic policy initiatives become public property. It underpins the most basic of rights of a democratic constituency to expect from their elected representatives. Almost all government activities take place behind closed doors are the representatives involved are usually classified with information that they cannot reveal. Yet, after a defined statute of limitations all of this classified information becomes opened to the public. There are many interesting questions that automatically pop into my head when I think of this civic practice.

The most intriguing questions to me relate to the possible negative consequences of revealing highly secretive materials. Do the rights of the citizenry to transparent government outweigh the need for nations to maintain their survival through national defense? Can highly secretive documents cast doubts in the minds of the citizenry strong enough to disrupt the democratic evolution of a society? How much time should be passed before letting documents such as national defense strategy, military tactical and operational strategy and doomsday scenario evaluations to ensure that the general safety of the nation can be maintained? How might documents pertaining to economic strategies and development be used by other nations to grab an upper hand in the global economy? These questions all rely on a central underlying theme: The notion of National Defense/Preservation in contrast to the Democratic/Civic Rights of the nation's citizenry. I for one believe that the rights of the citizenry should be upheld at all times but almost never in substitute for national defense. We can see this premise in action during the mass mobilizations of WWII and the restrictions imposed upon everyday citizens in terms or rationing, curfew and even freedom of speech. There are many shades of grey relating to this idea and I encourage anyone of interest to relate your opinions along with me. Personally, I want to be able to know what my government is doing as long as my knowledge of the processes does not jeopardize the country and its institutions. Let me know what you think!

If you are interested to see any of the new documents released by the Office of the Historian follow this link http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/. The latest set of documents relates to American Intervention in Latin America in terms of economic development and military interjections.