Truth

Truth

Sunday, October 31, 2010

Halloweenhead (Title not related to the post...)

Hey all,

I am pretty impressed  that I am already blogging again and it has only been about a week. While researching for my next chapter, I had a divine revelation. Bogged down in memory theory, an idea finally came to me. And I thought, why don't I just blog about it? That way I can feel like I am telling someone without having to actually bore any of my friends AND remember my ideas.

But first I must say, Happy Halloween! Here is a picture of me dressed up as a LOLCat.

The sign says, "I can haz candy?" Clever, right?

I realize the first question on your mind might be, why were you studying memory? (or it may be, why a LOLCat?) I will answer the first question (the second is simply obvious). By memory, I don't mean a memory stick or memory foam or memorization of facts. Instead, I refer to Personal vs. Collective memory. Confused by those terms? So was I!

Deciphering Khouri's book with these types of memory in mind is helpful. Why is that? Read on!
 ***********************************************************************************
"But what from one’s past can reasonably be known and subjected to examination?...Piled in with the rest are convenient imitation packages of memories constructed out of dreams and fantasies that were never paid for with experience.” -Bruce M. Ross

“Memory is furnished not only from the recollection of events which the individual has himself experienced but from the memories of others older than himself with whom he associates. From their account of their own experiences, which frequently antedates his own, and from written at various removes, his image of his ‘largest self’ is brought to include events which occurred both recently and earlier outside his own experiences. Thus, his knowledge of the past is furnished by the history of his family, of his neighborhood, of his city, of his religious community, of his ethnic group, of his nationality, of his country and of wider culture into which he has been assimilated.”-Edward Shils

Personal memory is casually defined as being: what I did, where I did it, how I did, when I did it. For example, I went to Smith between 2007-2011. I graduated with a history degree, etc etc. However, there is never any pure personal memory, for memory itself is a complicated, living, ever-changing thing. 


We run into mucky territory when we try to apply personal memory to Khouri's book. Through my research, it is almost certifiable that she did not experience the crimes she claims to witness in the book. This is where it is useful to cite Ross's quote. While it is almost a certainty that Khouri did not witness the death of a woman named Dalia, we can not deny it as part of her memory, even if it is constructed "out of dreams and fantasies." 


Ross goes on to claim:
"It can be furthered assumed as a general principle, if one acknowledges the inevitable social forging and personal memories, that it is somewhat arbitrary to limit influences that affect memory to the lifetime retention span of a single individuals and social institutions that transcend more that one generation."


I will refer back to this quote in the moment.


Yet, I cannot deny that Khouri's book is still not considered to be autobiographical memory. Ross defines autobiographical memory as being different from all other forms of memory because the events are "unrepeatable because they occurred at a specific point in time." However, that does not mean that it isn't personal. It is personal. Since Khouri is a con-artist and thus her memories are not transparent, we are forced to assume what we cannot prove.

But to create this book, it is probable that she used stories surrounding this topic from her community, newspapers, her parents and other relatives living in Jordan. The written and unwritten histories surrounding her contributed to this book. Jordan has become relatively infamous for honor killings, due to both the media and legislation. It is doubtful that as a Jordanian splitting time between America and Jordan that she did not get affected by honor killings and their place in the international dialogue.
************************************************************************************
 My recent thoughts have led me to the idea that Khouri is contributing to Collective Memory with her memoir. What is collective memory?
I know this cartoon isn't that helpful....

Collective memory as defined by James Wertsch is a "focus on how efforts to create a usable past meet political and identity needs." Novick expands, claiming that these memories work to establish an "essential truth about the group."

In this case, we can consider Khouri's group as an Arab woman. In her book, she is attempting to create an essential truth about honor killings in order to achieve a political and identity need. For example, she could be exploring the truths behind an identity as an Arab woman and what that entails. Or she could be defining what it entails for an Arab man. But her supposed political aim is to erradicate honor killings through political legislation.

Instead of a book about accuracy (Khouri has said it doesn't matter that she does not know what countries border Jordan) it is a book focused on a community message. Whether or not you think she portrayed that message for monetary gain is a seperate matter. What is evident, at least to me, is that she is engaging in a dialogue that existed at that time about honor killings. The book attempts to set the standard, to establish this "universal truth." That is why I quoted Ross regarding limiting memory to only personal memory. She could be unearthing this tale from the stories she heard around her, from the papers she has read in the past, it could come from several influences. It is doubtful to me that she pulled the story out of thin air. There needs to have been a precedent. And having lived in Jordan and America, she most likely had to deal with this cross-cultural identity.

But you may ask (with good reason), why does she not admit that? Why is it published as an autobiography? (I believe it is partially out of pride). She claims she was sexually assaulted by her father and beaten by her husband (the latter claim is unlikely) and that is what led to the story (after it was proven to be "untrue.") Why would she do this? Why would she make these audacious claims?

As a public figure, scrutinized for her deception of her readers and slandering of Jordan, Khouri took the quick way out. She is not stupid. She knows that trauma studies are influential and choosing another trauma to pin her lies on was a bold move. But like I mentioned earlier, we cannot believe her since she is a cunning con-artist. I would argue that she does not know where this story comes from. We cannot track her memory or her thought process. Consider a simple childhood memory. How do you know it is really truth? And where did your misconceptions of the event come from? You cannot pin it down. It wriggles away from you. If Khouri could explain it, perhaps she could. But I don't think she can. Or ever will be able to. 

I will be talking about a movie I watched about Khouri later this week. It is scandalous so be excited!

Sorry this post was so long. It is pretty instrumental that I lay it all out though. Don't you think?

Don't eat too much candy.

Salam,
Liz

No comments:

Post a Comment