Has the moon lost her memory?

Alison Landsberg's Prosthetic Memory: The Transformation of American Remembrance in the Age of Mass Culture is an interesting look at how new technology can simulate memory of history for the modern consumer. Having just watched Milk, I am totally into this idea.



Milk provides an open window to an otherwise less accessible historical moment. The narrative, combined with the sensory experience of the film's music and camerawork, allows the viewer to feel a certain set of emotions and develop ideas in sympathy with the movie's main characters. It is overwhelming to think of the combined effort hundreds of people to produce this particular experience. But to what extent is this "synthetic memory" history?

Landsberg would love Milk because it taps into modern resources to create "universal property," making the experience of Harvey Milk and the struggle of the 1970s gay rights movement a collectively experienced historical event. She states, "These mass cultural commodities...have the capacity to affect a person's subjectivity" (146). Landsberg looks at this effect through rose-colored glasses, assuming that the producers strive to create sympathy for progressive politics. While this assumption is absolutely true in the case of Milk, I think it is also important to note that the prosthetic memories she hails could have equally isolating effects for an identity group, depending on the cultural context in which they are viewed.

In "The Generation of Memory: Reflections on 'The Memory Boom' in Contemporary Historical Studies," Jay Winter partially credits the rise of the study of memory to the rise of identity politics. He claims, "The memory boom of the late twentieth century is a reflection of this matrix of suffering, political activity, claims for entitlement, scientific research, philosophical reflection, and art."

Winter's slightly more cynical view of memory is an essential component to a thorough examination of its value in the historical community and the greater public. His recognition of the origins and nature of memory and its uses compliment Landsberg's argument in that it recognizes that memory, like all forms of history, works from an angle. No matter how effectively a filmmaker, author, song writer, museum curator, or other medium works to present a historical moment in its entirety, there will always be sympathies, prejudices, and limitations that inhibit the viewer from fully understanding the personal experience of that moment.

That being said, I agree with Landsberg that the use of technology and mass culture can provide an incomparable tool for forming a more accepting and socially progressive society, particularly at the point where more and more young people are using these mediums to acquire and develop their world view. This might be, as Landsberg recognizes, a Utopian hope, but to quote Milk:

"If a bullet should enter my brain, let that bullet destroy every closet door... And that's all. I ask for the movement to continue. Because it's not about personal gain, not about ego, not about power... it's about the "us's" out there. Not only gays, but the Blacks, the Asians, the disabled, the seniors, the us's. Without hope, the us's give up - I know you cannot live on hope alone, but without it, life is not worth living."