Can the Psychology of Memory Enrich Historical Analyses of Trauma?

Abstract

Can the Psychology of Memory Enrich Historical Analyses of Trauma? David B. Pillemer (bio) The articles in this special issue address the relationship between trauma and memory in Chinese history. Although written primarily for fellow historians, they explore issues of strong potential interest to memory psychologists. The analyses are well documented, and all authors make informed references to scientific research on memory. Yet the approaches differ from psychological studies in several important respects. Published research on the form and functions of traumatic memory is offered as an occasional background voice of scientific authority, rather than as an indispensable conceptual foundation. The term "memory" appears in varied forms—collective memory, collective remembrance, historical memory, personal memory, public memory, traumatized memory, autobiographical memory, repressed memory, narrative memory, cultural memory—but the different terms are not defined with sufficient precision to satisfy most research psychologists. Despite the indirect, selective, and somewhat informal use of memory research and terminology, the articles are engaging, persuasive and provocative. What are the benefits for historians, if any, of adopting a more precise and scientifically informed analysis of memory structure and function? Psychologists may pick up on the ideas contained in these papers if they so choose, but shouldn't historians stick to history? The connection between trauma and memory is an ideal topic for examining the potential benefits of integrating psychological and historical approaches. The psychological research literature on traumatic memory is extensive, and trauma has played a recurrent role in Chinese history during [End Page 140] the hundreds of years spanned by the papers in this volume. Strong claims about the experience and enduring impact of trauma in China, and about the representation of this trauma in memory, require equally strong empirical support. Even modest refinement of terminology and clarification of concepts used by historians would deepen connections between historical and psychological studies. Calls for interdisciplinary approaches to research are ubiquitous, yet powerful examples of their benefits are few and far between. With respect to memory studies, an edited volume may include an article by a research psychologist embedded in a collection devoted primarily to the humanities,1 or a contribution by a humanist may be presented alongside a preponderance of psychological studies.2 Although such volumes may appeal to an interdisciplinary audience, they do not forcefully advance a truly interdisciplinary research agenda. The articles in this special issue explore links between the history of trauma and the psychology of trauma. In so doing, they provide an exceptional opportunity for examining the possibility of genuine conceptual connection and empirical collaboration. In this commentary, I identify two historical topics that may be enriched by additional input from psychologists: memories of trauma and vicarious traumatization. I show how psychological research bears directly on the questions explored by the contributors to this special issue, and how research findings may strengthen and extend the historical analyses. I conclude by considering an overarching question from a psychologist's perspective: In historical studies, what evidence should count as memory? Memories of Trauma Lynn Struve purposefully casts her study of Zhang Maozi's memoir, the Yusheng lu, within a psychological framework. She observes that "personal writings from the Ming-Qing transition exhibit for us the workings of human memory..." (p. 15) and uses current conceptions of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in her description of Zhang's mental state. Struve questions the idea that traumatic memory and PTSD are exclusively modern phenomena and uses Zhang's testimony in the Yusheng lu as a proof of its premodern existence. [End Page 141] Is Zhang's account of the extraordinary horrors that befell him in the face of the Qing attack of 1651 compatible with a diagnosis of PTSD? The American Psychiatric Association's list of symptoms includes reexperiencing the traumatic events through intrusive memories or nightmares; emotional numbing and lack of positive affect; and heightened arousal, including insomnia. These symptoms must continue to cause distress at least one month after the trauma.3 Struve's account of Zhang's unthinkable ordeal (witnessing suicides of family members, almost drowning, being held hostage, experiencing near starvation and bodily humiliation) and his tortured mental state in the months after he was released from prison ("the painful disruption...