The presidential address The Destruction of Cultural Memory (2001) is written in elaboration of what the author, Stephen Humphreys, expertly studies. The author advocates researching Middle Eastern history from the rise of Islam to present situation and this presidential address delivered to the annual meeting of Middle East Studies Association (MESA) is another follow-up research essay which focuses on the importance, causes and effects of the elimination or defacement of cultural memory in particular application in the Middle East.
Humphreys commenced through scratching the surface of what cultural memory is comprised of and he delivered that cultural memory is one that is shared with the society or in other words a collective memory. It is imperative that we will think of culture represented by arts and literature. Cultural memory destruction thus means reformation in the collective memory embedded in the culture. As what the author suggests, there is no use to mourn over the abandoned and forgotten cultural memory but is very essential to study for the betterment of understanding the present and predicting the path the society will possibly take in the future.
Destruction of a thing can possibly be followed by construction of another. Change means elimination of the before, for any reason and purpose, to construct the present. The author supported this popular thinking through citing the loss of many France’s heritage of medieval religious art during the 1600’s, defacement of Sainte Chapelle and Philae by the people who built it, destruction of Archivio di Stato di Napoli by Germans which put many historical archives of Europe into ashes, and many more. These examples imply that it is not only force majeure which destructs cultural memories but also war and paradigm shift.
It is like a person changing his or her attitudes because of some realizations: if a society feels exhausted and stagnant of what they have now they tend (intentionally or not) to devise changes. Natural calamities make people mourn because the aesthetics and costs of producing such structures are destroyed but it is suggested in the text that those are not merely physical structures posing civilization and grandeur but they carry memories which tell valuable stories. The mourning can possibly extend beyond tears and grief to a shift in mentality.Example provided in the text was the deterioration Rome from being a splendid capital to a half-ruined city of popes. A traveler who had gone to Rome before and after the deterioration can actually tell a theory or a story of what had happened to the city. In return, the people of Romans must have evaluated what really had happened to them.
Although the author did not laconically pinpoint the interconnections of his arguments, one can conclude something beyond if he or she will read carefully the evidences he presented.War and political turmoil could also serve as the consequence or even the impetus of cultural memory destruction. If change already occurred, is it possible to reinstate the past? This question could be said otherwise as ‘is it possible to change the current mentality of society if there are enemies or colonizers destroying the cultural memories and injecting their new and preferred culture? ’ If a society managed to withdraw back its lost culture, it means that they achieved decolonization.Meaning the country revived its own identity in arts, literature and most importantly sense of nationalism (no colonial mentality). This is the reason why most nationalist projects of countries include restoration and preservation of cultural heritages. Though it sounds like a very small step, doing such will always remind the people of what they were and what they are ought to be.
The concepts presented were used in understanding what the author is truly concerned with: the cultural memory destruction of Middle East.Though the text is disorienting because of information too much studded, the author managed to link the story of Middle East Muslims with the main concept. The author points a finger to the historical associations of the structures in Middle East as the reason why enemies or colonizers destroy them. Though it sounds like a hasty accusation that they are strategies of destroying the culture in order to make colonization easier, it can easily agreed upon.
After destruction comes a new better or worse one.It should not only the worse that should be put light upon but also the potential constructive effects of such changes. When the author insisted that the demolishment of Bamyan Buddhas must be evaluated as ‘a crime against human memory and personal identity’ and not as ‘crime against culture’, he disorients the readers of his real theme but the author wants the people to realize and to delve abstract repercussions behind the physical changes that are seen by our eyes.
