Memórias Coletivas e Identidades

Journal of Contemporary Ethnography
http://jce.sagepub.com Collective Memories and Collective Identities: Maintaining Unity in Native American Educational Social Movements
Timothy B. Gongaware Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 2003; 32; 483 DOI: 10.1177/0891241603255674 The online version of this article can be found at: http://jce.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/32/5/483
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Journal of Contemporary Ethnography can be found at: Email Alerts: http://jce.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://jce.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations (this article cites 28 articles hosted on the SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms): http://jce.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/32/5/483
Downloaded from http://jce.sagepub.com at CAPES on September 2, 2008 2003 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
It is not the
memories
JOURNAL OF Gongaware / COLLECTIVE CONTEMPORARY IDENTITIES ETHNOGRAPY / OCTOBER 2003
ARTICLE
10.1177/0891241603255674
themselves that are important to the unity of a social movement, but rather that the memory processes interactively construct unity around elements of collective identity.
COLLECTIVE MEMORIES AND COLLECTIVE IDENTITIES

Maintaining Unity in Native American Educational Social Movements TIMOTHY B. GONGAWARE University of WisconsinLa Crosse
TIMOTHY B. GONGAWARE is an assistant professor in the Department of Sociology and Archaeology at the University of WisconsinLa Crosse. In addition to the connection of collective memory and collective identity, his research has explored collective action framing and the role of the self in social movement processes. His most recent work examined the impact Native American women have had on the development of collective action frames in a SMO and the role of qualitative methods in the study of social movements, and he is currently working with a GLBT movement to explore the impact of countermovement activity on memory, identity, and framing processes.
Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, Vol. 32 No. 5, October 2003 483-520 DOI: 10.1177/0891241603255674 2003 Sage Publications 483
484
JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY ETHNOGRAPY / OCTOBER 2003
This ethnographic study of two Native American social movement organizations challenging educational practices examines the collective memory processes that occur simultaneously and in conjunction with the process of collective identity to help maintain movement unity. Links between collective memory and collective identity are theoretically traced, and the concept of narrative commemoration is proposed to help explore two distinct processes which emerged in the analysis. The first process, collective memory creation, makes collective memories of recent events held by only a small portion of a movements membership available to be shared by the whole movement. The second process, collective memory maintenance, ensures that memories from the movements past are carried forward to be shared by current members. Each process is important as movement members develop a unity around ends, means, fields of action, networks of relations, and recollections of these elements from the movements past. Keywords: collective identity; collective memory; ethnography; narrative commemoration; social movements
Having driven for two hours, primarily past fields of milo and corn and into one of the states Native American reservations, we finally arrive at the site for a meeting of the State Indian Education Association. This month the meeting is being held in an apartment referred to as The Teacherage. Located in an apartment complex next to a school that serves K-12 students, primarily Native American, the apartment is home to a teacher education program supported by the state university. As we go inside I am immediately struck by the smell of something cooking on the stove. Looking around, I see tables and counters filled with food: packages of bread, plates of cut-up vegetables and lunch meats, bags of chips and other foods generously provided by the Teacherage students for the groups lunch. Although the meeting is to start in only a minute, we stand or sit around for a bit talking with each other. People ask each other about other people they know, catch up on what people have been doing, ask about classes and what the students are like and, most important, talk about SIEA activities that have been going on and those that are planned.
AUTHORS NOTE: Many thanks to Rob Benford and the anonymous reviewers at JCE for their constructive comments on earlier drafts of this article, to the advisory committee for my dissertation from which this article was drawn, and to the members of the movements I studied whose work has been so important to their communities and whose guidance helped me to understand it.
Gongaware / COLLECTIVE IDENTITIES
485
As the conversations turn to these activities, Hela decides that we should start the meeting. Calling the meeting to order, Hela asks one of the men present to provide an invocation; a prayer to the grandfather(s) for those both present and absent who are working in and for Native American education, as well as for the students who can benefit from their work. This is followed by a quick review of what was done at the last meeting and whats been done since then. As I look around the room I see people listening and nodding their heads, and some are taking notes. Although many of these people were not present at the last meeting, or even at the activities, it occurs to me that the conversation is providing memories, collective memories, of what the group has been doing recently; I begin to wonder if this is a part of the unity that people develop in what Melucci (1985) describes as the process of collective identity. [Fieldnote excerpt]
Scholars of social movements have increasingly turned to the concept of collective identity in order to explore questions of movement emergence, mobilization, strategic choices, and cultural effects left unanswered by resource mobilization and political process models (Polletta and Jasper 2001). One important focus of research in this area puts to question the sense of unity in a social movement. This unity, argues Melucci (1985), is the result of a process of collective identity. Similarly, scholars examining collective memory contend that groups of people gain a sense of unity through the interactional construction of collective memories. While distinct in their substantive focus, although not always in the groups they study, other researchers have provided important insights into both collective memory and collective identity. However, as I show in this article, it is important to explore both of these as complementary and intertwined processes that work toward the development of social movement unity. To explore this link, I draw on data from an ethnographic study of two Native American1 groups challenging educational systems and practices. During my early work with these groups, each appeared to have a common understanding of the past that influenced their decisions in the present. The presence of these shared notions of the past in the collective identity process raised an interesting question: what is the connection of collective memories to the collective identity process as it relates
486
to a movements unity? I argue here that collective memories are conduits for the connection of past experiences with present ones in the collective identity process. This is important in the collective identity process as it provides, through narratives interactively exchanged, an additional source of unity. Two related interactive collective memory processes, collective memory creation and collective memory maintenance, emerged in the analysis of the data. First, collective memory creation develops collective memories from activities by bringing people up to speed and providing them with details of the memorys object of reference. Collective memory maintenance, on the other hand, allows a movement to ensure that memories of the past continue to remain a part of the collective memory. In both cases, it is the unity of the collective identity that is at stake and is reproduced in the interactions in which they occur.
UNITY THROUGH IDENTITY AND MEMORY

The very notion of a collective identity implies a unity of individuals, events and ideas through time and space (Mueller 1994; Taylor 1989). Positioned in time and space are the groups perceptions of their own distinctiveness from other groups, boundaries between members and nonmembers, appropriate activities, practices and rituals, and interpretive frameworks (Jasper 1997; Johnston, Laraa, and Gusfield 1994; Taylor and Whittier 1995, 1992). More important, the collective identity of a social movement implies the unity of a shared sense that it is a coherent actor with shared ends, means and fields of action, shared relationships, and shared emotional investments (Jasper 1997; Melucci 1995, 1996). One of the questions in social movement research asks how the commitment to a movement is generated and maintained via collective identity (Polletta and Jasper 2001). Collective identity has been shown to coalesce around moral shocks, identity talk, tactics and strategies, previous and current networks of relations, and other shared experiences and understandings of movement participants (cf. Friedman and McAdam 1992; Hunt and Benford 1994; Jasper 1997; Melucci 1996; Polletta 1998a; Snow and McAdam 2000; Taylor and Whittier 1992). Movements unite around shared experiences, ideas, and notions that
487
develop as participants interact, to one degree or another, with other movement members. Similarly, collective memory research has pointed out the importance of shared experiences in the development of a groups collective memory (cf. Lipsitz 1990; Mannheim 1928; Wagner-Pacifici and Schwartz 1991). Initially, collective memory was taken as an object, as a framework of notions (impersonal and abstract representations) of persons and facts, which hangs together as a totality of thought common to the group, and which expresses the general attitude of the group, the groups nature, its qualities, its weaknesses, and its historically developed traits (Halbwachs 1925). However, more recent work has expanded on this by adding dimensions such as the power of individuals both in and outside of the group, the ability of the present to hold multiple and contradictory visions of the past that may interact and influence each other, and the constraining force of the past itself (Beamish, Molotch, and Flacks 1995; Fine 1996, 1999; Schwartz 1991a). Collective memory, then, is not seen as an object, but as a process that involves integrating personal remembrances to be shared by all (Zerubavel 1996). Thus, collective memory also implies a sense of unity for a group as remembrances are shared and interactively integrated in one way or another. For example, generations may share collective memories through stories based on similar experiences in adolescence (Schuman and Scott 1989), or collective memories of a group may be spread through a population via the media (Beamish, Molotch, and Flacks 1995). By definition, a degree of unity must exist in a group, as collective memories, and the relations to the past they express, are commonly held by the group. The unity of social movement members, then, is developed as individuals share experiences and/or the collective memories of experiences. In the observations presented here, the unity of the movement was continually renegotiated as movement members, drawing on collective memories, discussed issues of movement ends, means, fields of action, emotional investments, networks of relations, and boundaries through a process of collective memory. Interactively, this process relied upon mnemonic practices in general and, as explored here, the practice of narrative commemoration.
488
MNEMONIC PRACTICES AND NARRATIVE COMMEMORATIONS

Mnemonic practices are those activities, such as celebrations, monument building, and myths, which relate to the memory (cf. Olick and Robbins 1998). As Zelizer (1995) points out, in its skeletal state, remembering threads the linkage between two distinct activities, recollection and commemoration (p. 219). To attend to the collective memory of a group, in this case a movement, a researcher must examine the practices of individuals. Where collective memory fits into the collective identity, the mnemonic practices serve as mechanisms for establishing and maintaining movement unity. First, according to Zelizer (1995) recollections are the act of establishing a relationship with some event, issue or entity of the past (p. 219). Recollections of direct experiences can provide the relationship as when individuals support the notion of voluntary World War II mobilization by relating their own WWII enlistment stories (Bodnar 1996). Similarly, institutions like the mass media can connect individuals with pasts they have not directly experienced, thus eliminating direct experience as the only way to form connections to larger varieties of pasts (Lipsitz 1990). While recollections establish a relationship with the past, the second practice, commemoration, expresses this link (Olick and Robbins 1998; Zelizer 1995; Zerubavel 1995). In many cases, this expression takes a physical form such as holidays, celebrations, festivals, monuments, or stories, and can eventually crystalize into a cultural object (Assmann 1995). Research indicates that commemorations are put out there for consumption, use, transformation, and, according to Zerubavel (1995), they can compete with scholarly appraisals of the past in constructing collective memory (p. 5). Using either of these two practices, or a combination of them, there are a wide range of forms available through which social movements can attend to their collective memories/identities. Many previous studies (cf. Olick 1999; Polletta 1998b; Schwartz 1982, 1991a; WagnerPacifici and Schwartz 1991) have focused on the large, public and/or particularly important commemorations such as monuments, holidays, and celebrations. However, in this study I focus on what I term narrative commemorations, and their use in the everyday interactive processes of collective identity and collective memory.
489
NARRATIVES Narratives have long been identified as important in the study of collective memory, and are often tapped to examine memories evoked by and about commemorations (cf. Beamish et al. 1995; Polletta 1998b; Zamponi 1998; Schwartz 1998). In such studies, individuals construct the collective memory in and through their interactions. Through the narratives, people exchange remembrances of events and draw on each others remembrances to fill in gaps, correct misconceptions, and flesh out particular memories for the group (Assmann 1995; Halbwachs 1925, 1950; Olick and Robbins 1998; Zelizer 1995; E. Zerubavel 1996; Y. Zerubavel 1995). Similarly, narratives are important in the study of social movements. Indeed, Fine (1995) goes so far as to conceptualize social movements as bundles of narratives. He argues that narratives are imperative to the creation of a movements culture, and without such a shared and communicated culture, sustained collective action is impossible (Fine 2002, 230). Following this idea, recent movement research has pointed to the importance of narratives as agents of expression, persuasion, and social control (cf. Benford 2002; Billig 1995; Gamson 1995; Hunt and Benford 1994; Steinberg 1998; Williams and Williams 1995). As narratives have been explored in movements, the relation of past with present has been highlighted. Polletta (1998a), for example, notes that narrative is prominent in such interpretive processes because its temporally configurative capacity equips it to integrate past, present, and future events and to align individual and collective identities during periods of change (p. 139). Further, in telling the story of our becomingas an individual, a nation, a peoplewe establish who we are (p. 141). Examining narratives, then, becomes an important means for exploring both the processes of collective identity and collective memory. In fact, they emerged as particularly important from the data in this study, as it was the narratives that commemorated collective identity aspects of the past which helped to create and maintain movement unity. NARRATIVE COMMEMORATIONS Narrative commemorations are those narratives which express links to past experiences and which are exchanged in the everyday interactions of group members. Found within the interactive processes of
490
collective memory and identity, the narrative commemorations do not only establish a link with the past, but express this link as would a formal commemoration. However, unlike the formal commemorations traditionally studied, narrative commemorations occur informally through the everyday exchanges of group members. Long studied by researchers in collective memory, a formal commemoration has been described as lifting from an ordinary historical sequence those extraordinary events which embody our deepest and most fundamental values (Schwartz 1982, 377). The formal process of commemoration involves any number of different forms, and tends to be viewed as both highly ritualized and, in some cases, dependent on this ritualization. For example, Schwartz (1991b) shows how, through the ritual of mourning, American society was able to change Lincolns memory into something to be cherished at a time when most people held him in mixed or low regard (p. 344). Similarly, Zerubavel (1995) examines commemorative rituals as ways that groups revive, affirm, and modify older memories of the past through what he terms a commemoration narrative: a story about a particular past that accounts for this ritualized remembrance and provides a moral message for the group members (p. 6). In studies such as these, commemoration is not only a formal process, but may produce objects (e.g., celebrations, monuments, services, myths, and holidays) for use in the process and/or synchronization of subsequent commemorative rituals (E. Zerubavel 1996; Y. Zerubavel 1995). However, not all commemorations produce or rely on specific objects. Schudson (1992), for example, notes that a collective memory can live on through nonspecific creations such as Watergates commemoration within the names of those who were a part of that event. The implication is that commemorations do not, in fact, need to take on an objective or even specific form in order to endure. As such, the defining characteristic of a commemoration is not that it is a formal process, or even that it involves an object. Instead, a commemoration is that which expresses a link to the past and has a degree of persistence over a period of time. Where previous studies directed their focus on formal commemorations and the conditions in which they are created over long periods of time, I explore a more informal process. Following the challenge of recent work in social constructivism (cf. Miller and Holstein 1993), I direct attention to the processes of reality production. Spector and
491
Kitsuse (1977), examining social problems, argue that they are the activities of individuals or groups making assertions or grievances and claims with respect to some putative conditions (p. 75; see also Ibarra and Kitsuse 1993). I follow a similar line here in maintaining that narrative commemorations are the activities of groups selecting those memories which are significant and are to endure within a particular context. The focus, then, is on the mundane, or informal interactions of group members, rather than on what is produced (Gubrium 1993). In analyzing the informal processes for this study, narratives that appeared similar to commemorations emerged from the data. Far from being the formless, willful, or disorganized communications that have been thought to characterize everyday communications of collective memories (Assman 1995), these narrative commemorations highlighted specific features of the past that were of particular significance and use in the interaction. In interactions, individuals exchanged narratives of selected past experiences that were significant within the context of the interaction. This was similar to Schwartzs (1982) observation that the choice of a memory for a formal commemoration is a selective exploitation of past events and people that have some factual significance to the group; a significance, I should point out, that is presupposed by their perpetuation (Schwartz 1982, 390). While the events and people selected for narrative commemorations may appear trivial and ordinary when compared to the extraordinary events selected for more formal commemorations, they are important in the immediate context of the interaction. Additionally, just as formal commemorations help to establish a groups self-conception by creating a relatively enduring connection with the groups past (Wagner-Pacifici and Schwartz 1991), narrative commemorations are informal means to the same end contained within a specific interaction or set of interactions. Just as the identification of shared pasts helped establish socially situated action for the dyads studied by Katovich and Couch (1992), narrative commemorations can be seen here as providing interactants with an organizing framework around which to formulate subsequent interaction. However, equally important is their function in helping a group to develop its sense of self and unity by expressing a link to past events, people, and experiences that are significant within the context of the interaction. Narrative commemorations are features of a production of social reality as they arise in the mundane interactions that comprise the
492
collective identity and collective memory processes. While a narrative commemoration may in fact endure beyond an interaction and become a formal commemoration (a situation for exploration elsewhere), they are not initially intended for formal public consumption. They are, instead, constructed and exchanged within the informal interactions of movement participants. As explored below, a movement forges its unity with the past through the conduit of collective memory. As the narrative commemorations informally express a selected link to the past, they can serve as this conduit.
METHOD AND SETTING

This study draws on ethnographic data collected through a year of observation, participation, and formal interviews with two Native American social movement organizations.2 The two groups, a State Indian Education Association and an urban areas Title IX Parent Advisory Committee, each challenge educational issues and practices. In both cases, I observed and participated in formal and informal group meetings and in group activities/events, and I interacted one on one with members outside of group gatherings. The majority of the events in which I observed and participated were open to the public, while others were those that I was invited to attend and observe.3 Throughout the study I kept written field notes of the activities, events, and interactions observed. These were entered, along with the interview transcripts, into the QSR*NUDIST qualitative data analysis program. Using the program, I analyzed the data following a grounded theory approach (cf. Glaser 1992; Glaser and Strauss 1967; Strauss and Corbin 1990). Through grounded theory I was able to attend to the themes and their relations as they emerged from an examination of incidents gathered from the movements. The challenges posed by the two groups I worked with in this study are neither rare nor new in the history of Native American relations following the colonization of North America. Scholarly work indicates that the experiences and outcomes of Native Americans in the educational system, like those of other minority groups, comprise a unique history of ongoing colonization practices that has included missionary work, day schools, boarding schools, and our current system of public
493
education (Adams 1995; Noriega 1992; Reyhner and Eder 1988; Szasz 1999). In modern education systems, many of the curriculums (which either leave out Native Americans altogether or misrepresent them in fundamental ways) are controlled by either Anglo teachers or Anglotrained Native American teachers (Cleary and Peacock 1998; Noriega 1992). Additionally, many educational institutions for Native Americans have had poor leadership, few resources for maintaining structures, and inadequate relations between the schools and communities (Cleary and Peacock 1998). More specifically, the Anglo values of individualism and interpersonal competition tend to be taught and directly conflict with cultural values such as community, reciprocity, and cooperation (James et al. 1995). These practices have, from the beginning, elicited contention from parents, tribes, and intertribal organizations (Adams 1995; Reyhner and Eder 1988; Szasz 1999). Groups have challenged the treatment of Native American students by teachers and administrators, the use of Native Americans as mascots for school teams, and the incorrect or lack of historical and cultural information about Native Americans in curriculums (Nagel 1996; Reyhner and Eder 1988; Szasz 1999). Posing challenges such as these and working on solutions were the goals of the two movements studied here. Each of the two movements contained members from different tribes, and thus from different cultural backgrounds. Interestingly, members did not tend to explicitly identify tribally specific understandings of activities and practices. Instead, they tended during meetings to refer to our culture or our traditions when discussing the group as a whole, and only to their specific tribal affiliations/understandings when speaking with each other outside of meetings. This reflects the use of what Cornell (1988) terms a supratribal ethnic identity. Emerging more prominently after WWII with the migration of many Native Americans into urban areas (Cornell and Hartmann 1998), the supratribal ethnic identity is composed of those descendants of American aborigines who act self-consciously on the basis of Indianness (Cornell 1988, 107). Although tribal distinctions are still important to many Native Americans, a form of detribalization has occurred during the establishment of modern Indian-White relations (Cornell 1988). Nagel (1996) argues that this unifying categorical distinction was given greater currency through the Red Power movement of the late
494
1960s and early 1970s. She argues that, as the movement identified problems common to many different tribes, it
reaffirmed Native Americans shared history, values, and meaning and provided a symbolic base from which to appeal to constituents, recruit participants, build organization, and plan and launch protest actions. (p. 158)
Native American organizations, particularly those working in urban areas, then, have made use of the supratribal identity as a means for gaining power in working with societal and governmental institutions (Cornell and Hartmann 1998). Similarly, the ethnic identity was important for the two movements examined in this study. Both groups drew on members who were from various tribes, and each group worked to meet commonly shared goals or to make use of resources designated by outside groups such as the government for use by those of the categorical distinction Native American. The first of the two groups with whom I worked was the State Indian Education Association (SIEA). For the past fifteen years, the SIEA has met with legislators and state government officials, has organized workshops for educators and parents, has worked as advocates for students and parents in schools and school districts, and has provided scholarships for Native American college students from different tribal backgrounds. During the study, group membership included over sixty educators, administrators, researchers, program directors, tribal and state government officials, parents, and students. Three fourths of both the membership and Board of Directors were women. Further, except for two individuals (myself and one of the groups founding members), Board positions were held by Native Americans. Both the board positions and regular membership rolls included individuals from tribes including Omaha, Winnebago/Ho-Chunk, Cherokee, Cheyenne River, Oglala, Rosebud, and Santee. Meetings of the SIEA were relatively small and, although ranging from four to fourteen, averaged about nine members. Meetings lasted for three to four hours and were held on the first Saturday afternoon of the month. Discussions at the meetings, which usually included a meal, addressed both evaluations of past activities and plans for future events and activities. In addition to the discussions at meetings, members communicated by phone and email and at small informal and/or impromptu
495
meetings, and talked at SIEA or community events and activities to keep abreast of events going on around the state. The second group, a Title IX Parent Advisory Committee (Title IX PAC), maintained a focus on issues within their own school district. Meetings were meant to facilitate and implement programs that would assess, evaluate, and deal with the problems that were or might be experienced by Native American students in the district. Most meetings averaged eleven attendees, ranging from seven to eighteen individuals depending on the topic. Ideally, group membership included all of the districts Native American parents and children. However, the core group included four school personnel and five parents who consistently attended meetings. The Title IX PACs three-hour-long meetings were held in the early evening, and usually included a meal of some sort (provided either by the district or by potluck). The group was supported by a federal Title IX grant of $56,000 which was to be used for the benefit of Native American children. Most discussions focused on future events, developing baseline assessments, and disseminating information about available district services. Although I was not a party to all phone and email conversations within this group, such as those of subcommittees and factions of the group, I did take part in formal meetings and activities as well as many informal gatherings and in conversations at group events.
COLLECTIVE MEMORY CREATION

The concept of narrative commemorations helps identify the key to answering what emerged as an important question throughout the study: what happens when some members of a movement are not present for an experience and do not have access to the memories of that experience? An answer to this question came at meetings where collective memories were narratively presented to those who had not been involved with a recent activity. In short, members engaged in a process of collective memory creation where the narrative commemorations act as unifying agents. Specifically, collective memory creation develops collective memories of recent activities by bringing people up to speed and providing them with details of the memorys object of reference.
496
The interactions that create the framework of the movements collective memories instigate the collective identity process, and through it the movements unity is renegotiated and reasserted. THE SOCIAL DRAMA OF COLLECTIVE MEMORY CREATION Turners social drama (1969, 1982) provides a model for understanding how the collective memory creation process takes place. According to Turner (1982) each social drama begins with a breach in the normal tenor of life. This then leads to a crisis of understanding and a situation in which sides are formed and taken. To prevent the further development of a breach, people use redressive mechanisms which aid in leading people to either recognize that the breach cannot be repaired or reintegrate and reconstitute the group. As will be explored below, the narrative commemoration of an experience that is held by only a part of the membership can serve as just such a breach. It creates a crisis in the groups sense of unity as understandings of the movements past are no longer thought to be shared. The redressive mechanism used, in this case, tends to be interactions in which participants provide details of the collective memory being created. It is in these details that elements of the collective identity arise (e.g., membership definitions, appropriate activities, group missions, and group distinctiveness) and act as a catalyst for the collective identity process. Through the redressive mechanism of exploring details, the interaction can move toward a reintegration. This tends to involve a redefinition of the movements past to incorporate the collective memory being created, and a redefinition of the movements present to incorporate notions of collective identity elements that arose in the interaction. Through the interactive sharing of these elements, participants can then regain a sense of unity (see Figure 1). THE DEVELOPING RELATIONSHIP AND BREACHES IN UNITY One of the best examples of collective memory creation in the current study emerged as the SIEA developed a unity in the shared notions of its field of action and its distinctiveness from the states newly
497
FIGURE 1: The Social Drama and Collective Memory Creation
formed Advisory Council on Native American Education (ACNAE).4 The ACNAE was formed following a state-sponsored Indian Education Summit Conference held in the fall of 1999. This summit, and the task force it proposed, focused primarily on public schools that were located on reservations in the state. The conference was organized because of expectations that public schools on reservations would be classified as low-performing in a state assessment of all the public schools. Members of the SIEA were a part of both the summit and a meeting at the states Department of Education (DOE) that selected representatives from various groups and tribes to be ACNAE members. However, the SIEA was not given a specific slot on the task force for its own representative. As a result, the SIEA decided to send a delegation of members to the commissioner to discuss the situation. The delegation (six people including myself) first met to discuss strategies, met again just before the meeting to go over everything, and then met with the commissioner for about an hour. Before hearing our arguments for an SIEA position on the task force, the commissioner outlined some of his ideas on the development of the task force.
We [the DOE] seemed to be trying to deal with tribal communities as if they are like any other community, but theyre not, they have their own issues. So, how do we make policies work for Native American kids? I dont know that we have a specific agenda. If anything . . . well, if we have something to go to the legislature next year I want it to go next year and we need the council [ACNAE] to decide this. We also need a Native American in this department who would be a consultant.
After we argued our case, the commissioner agreed to consider our request and indicated that he would call us in a few days. Following this there was a series of phone conversations between members of the delegation, and then a phone call from the commissioner to the SIEAs president and myself agreeing to give SIEA a position on the task force.
498
Creating a collective memory for the entire group out of the delegations experiences involved narratively commemorating those experiences in conversations with other members. Although many details concerning this meeting were provided at subsequent SIEA meetings, the first chance to engage in collective memory creation with other SIEA members occurred at a school event on one of the reservations in the state. In effect, upon hearing that the meeting with the commissioner had taken place, those who were not in the delegation no longer had a sense that they knew what had happened in the movements past. Ok, Im lost, what did we do at the meeting? was a common response. These members were missing a piece of information, and their sense of unity with the group was disrupted. As I was both secretary for the SIEA and a member of the delegation, people often came to me for information. I was thus able to observe the breaches firsthand. Questions such as So, who went with you? and What happened at the meeting with [the Commissioner]? were frequent expressions of the breach. To begin redressing this breach, to fill in the information they were missing, I was asked for details of the experience. For example, I told them who was on the delegation, what was said, what was asked, and how the representative was chosen. Speaking with another delegation member, I found that they had answered similar questions in informal conversations. The process of collective memory creation occurred in both informal conversations and formal SIEA meetings. In both situations, the breaching and collective memory creation began through bringing people up to speed, which initiated a breach in understandings of the movements past. This was then followed by a period of detailed accounting that tended to force a focus on one or more of the collective identity elements.
First, we should bring everyone up to speed.
Bringing people up to speed was either used or implied wherever portions of the membership needed to be given information of something new from the recent past. The initial act in bringing people up to speed was a stimulus that involved informally presenting little to only general details of a collective memory from the recent past. For example, at a Title IX PAC meeting, a veteran member 5 brought newer members up to speed with narrative commemorations about a developing program.
499
Maria: Have we started the summer program for the high schoolers? Hela: First, we should bring everyone up to speed. For those just joining, weve been developing what, for lack of a better term, are transitional summer camps.
Going back to the SIEA-ACNAE relation, a discussion concerning the task force began after a comment was made about the lack of attendance at meetings.
Hela: One thing weve learned over the years is that people need something in it for themselves. [The DOE Commissioner] calls a meeting and gets people. Tina: Its about power. Walt: Which meeting? When we met with [the Commissioner] to get someone on the task force? Tina: No, we met with . . . we had our first Advisory Council meeting.
The memory of the first task force meeting is not initially an important focal point. Instead, the memory is informally interjected as it relates to a present interest in SIEA meeting attendance. However, the memory breaches the groups unity and the group turns its focus to the task force. In a majority of cases, the narrative commemorations involved something from the recent past which only a few members knew about. Finding out that other SIEA members were appointed to ACNAE, for instance, was new even to people from the original delegation. Walt, a founding member of the SIEA and a member of the delegation, was unaware that other appointments had been made. Responding to Tinas comment, We had our first Advisory Council meeting, Walt asked, Are you on that?
Tina: Yeah Walt: Really? [upward inflection in voice] I thought Hela was on it. Tina: She is . . . Walt: And so are you? Tina: Yeah, as a representative of parents from [a large urban area]. Hela: We had a sort of a take over . . . [big smile] Walt: Good for you . . .
Walt was aware that ACNAE had accepted Hela as the SIEA representative, but was surprised that ACNAE had also appointed another SIEA member. This breached Walts perception of the movements past.
500
Other members were sitting quietly, but their quizzical looks, attentiveness, head nodding/shaking indicated that the new information had also breached their understanding of the movements past. Additionally, since the information indicated a new way for the movement to relate to ACNAE (through more than one representative), it breached an understanding of the present. In this case, a breach in understanding the movements past meant a breach in shared understandings of present networks of relations. This was a common occurrence in collective memory creations. Since collective memories relate to present interests of a group, they force considerations of present collective identity elements. Then, as the interaction proceeds, it works to redress the breach in the unity of both the past and present: it works to redefine both the collective memory and collective identity.
There is still a need for us.
Details of the collective memory serve as redressive mechanisms in the social drama that begins when a narrative commemoration breaches a movements shared sense of unity involving definitions of both the past and present. In other words, the process continues through the exchange and consideration of information about the collective memory, and the shared definition of the past is interactively negotiated. As the narrative commemoration indicates elements of the collective identity, participants can actively consider details of these elements to help redress the breach. Returning to our main example, the conversations among SIEA members concerning ACNAE tended to force a focus on both the SIEAs field of action and its distinctiveness. A good example came in early conversations that centered on strategies for the delegations meeting with the DOE commissioner. The conversation began with a description of ACNAEs general purpose, and a discussion of what the group should do at the meeting. In discussing this information, the group began to answer a members question about why SIEA needed to be on the task force in the first place.
Merry: Were an organization dedicated to the education of Native Americans and we have members with a high amount of dedication. Theyre volunteers. Hela: Were the only state organization dedicated to Indian education.
501
Merry: We should put together a list of what weve done. We are set up to work cooperatively with various organizations such as the task force. ME: Were also committed to supporting, in whatever way they ask, their efforts? Merry: Right, and with the growing interest and focus on Indian education we can provide a pool of support from various degreed educators.
Here, the collective memory of ACNAEs purpose and proposed activity invoked a discussion about the SIEA-ACNAE relation. This then invoked a consideration of the movement itself; a collective identity process of negotiating notions of ends, membership, and means. Considerations of these notions were developed by presenting collective memories of what the SIEA is supposed to do, what it had done, and its membership. To develop a relation with ACNAE, the SIEA used collective memories to ground understandings of its own distinctiveness. This distinction became more important as the task force continued to evolve. Collective memory creations involved some members experiences with ACNAE. Details of the SIEA-ACNAE relationship aided in developing the movements shared understanding of itself and its field of action.
Hela: We [ACNAE] have had three meetings. Weve spent most of our time defining our priorities. We havent really done anything yet. Theres a lot of discussion that comes out to not a lot being done. Im kind ofI shouldnt be the one talking about it because I . . . Tina: You sound really negative. I dont think its that negative. Hela: I feel real negative about it. I think its becoming a real political kind of thing. Tina: And you knew it would be because its the Department of Education, its a state entity, a state agency . . . Hela: Well, at any rate, I just dont see a lot happening. At least here we do things.
Obviously, personal opinions about ACNAE differed. However, Helas new information allowed her to make a statement about the SIEA. At other points, people referenced the activities of the SIEA as an important distinction from ACNAE. Referring to a conversation in which a member had implied that ACNAE would be doing what the SIEA was doing, Hela referenced a recent movement activity.
502
One thing I had said was that the state committee might be seen as doing what were doing, but I still see a need for us. For example, I got a call from some parents about their son who had a ponytail and was being told by the school to cut his hair. The parents were quite upset about that so they came and talked. They had an appointment with the principal, and they wanted some support.
She then went on to describe how the SIEA provided support by writing a letter to the principal and agreeing to attend the parents meeting with the principal if needed. Along with ties to other political entities and differences in group ends/means, distinctions in membership emerged when narrative commemorations turned to ACNAE in collective memory creation. Specifically, the interaction focused on the need to make ACNAE aware of the SIEAs unique membership. For example, Tinas narrative commemoration of task force membership made a contradistinction with the shared understanding of SIEAs membership.
One of the things that they dont realize is the level of professionalism that we have. The thing that frustrates me is that on that advisory committee . . . well its starting to sort out now. But at the first couple of meetings you had people [for whom] education is one of the things they deal with over a whole myriad of things. So theyre not focused entirely on education. Some of those people have filtered out now, and so now you have more educators there which may make a difference in the long run. One of the problems I always see is that you have non-educators running education which is stupid.
The SIEA membership is labeled as professional, and more specifically, as composed of professional educators. The contradistinction between SIEA and ACNAE provided above is made through an accounting of ACNAE membership and the focus of its members. In this case, the movement develops its distinctiveness and field of action through the collective memory creation process. The narrative commemorations of ACNAE initially breached the groups unity and then, through details, brought elements of the collective identity into play. The final piece of this social drama is the redress of the breach through the use of the details.
503
Redefining past and present
According to Turner (1982), the redress of a breach takes the form of people either taking sides or reconciling. In the examples presented here, a stimulus breached the unity of shared notions of the past, and details simultaneously invoked and instigated a consideration of collective identity elements. Participants explored both collective memory details and collective identity elements as they worked to reconcile the breached unity. However, reconciliation is not always immediately apparent. Participants did not explicitly reflect on what they had just heard and then express the redefinition. Instead, indications of the redefinition arose at later times, and in offhand remarks and comments not otherwise focused on the interaction which had allowed the past/present to be redefined. Take, for instance, the initial breach created when information about the SIEA delegations meeting with the commissioner was presented, or when a discussion of the first meeting was presented. In subsequent conversations and comments, the actions of the delegation were never referred to as something accomplished by a separate group. It was not they who secured a position for the SIEA or went to the first ACNAE meeting. Instead, individuals who were not personally involved in these events made comments such as We went to the commissioner to ask for a position, or [The Commissioner] then called us and said we could have a position, or referenced the time We went to the first ACNAE meeting. What these recollections conveyed was a collective memory of what the movement had done. This indicated a sense that the movement had acted as a coherent actor. Having reconciled the breach with the new information, the participants now had the knowledge of what was done by a portion of the movement, and had redefined it as something the entire group had accomplished. The unity of the group was reestablished through collective memory creation. The redefinition in the redress did not stop at the creation of a new collective memory. This new memory was a crucial part in the ongoing collective identity process. Furthering the shared unity, movement members were able to posit definitions of, for example, the field of
504
action of which the SIEA and ACNAE were a part, and the distinctiveness of SIEA from ACNAE. For example, in an interview with an SIEA member after these discussions, the difficulty of ACNAEs chairperson to draw on people outside the political sphere was a defining distinction.
My personal feeling is that the SIEA has to exist, because there isnt another one like it. There has to be this organization to kind of . . . well . . . Just like when [the DOE commissioner] is getting a state wide advisory group together and doesnt know that the [SIEA] exists, but Hela is able, through the mailing list she has, to muster a group of people to get down to the state department of education and talk to him and in no uncertain terms let him know why its important that SIEA be brought into the scope on that list of committee members. SIEA may not be making huge changes, but at least they are an entity that is there to respond sometimes, and other times to take action.
Here, Jana, who is an instructor at one of the states universities, draws on a shared notion of the field of action: that the SIEA works in a broader environment. It should be noted that this was not necessarily a new definition of the field of action. In conversations prior to the development of ACNAE, members had defined the SIEA as working in a broad field of action. The redefinition of the present does not necessarily entail developing a completely new definition of the present. Rather, the redefinition can entail a renewed, or perhaps enlarged, sense of the movement and its unity.
COLLECTIVE MEMORY MAINTENANCE

Collective memory maintenance is a process that emerges from the data as the way movement participants make sure recollections from the distant past are carried forward to the present. While collective memory creation draws from the recent past, collective memory maintenance draws from a more distant past (e.g., earlier that year, earlier in the movements history, or even further back in time). As argued above, movement unity involves the sharing of experiences (cf. Hunt and Benford 1994; Jasper 1997; Melucci 1996; Snow and McAdam 2000) as well as collective memories of experiences (cf. Lipsitz 1990; Mannheim 1928; Schuman and Scott 1989; Wagner-Pacifici and
505
Schwartz 1991) that are relevant to the movement. As previous research has shown the importance of the pasts influence on the present (cf. Olick 1999; Ruffins 1997; Schudson 1992; Schuman and Scott 1989; Schwartz 1996; Spillman 1998), it is important to examine how collective memories of experiences in the more distant past continue to be shared by movement members. As with collective memory creation, Turners (1969, 1982) social drama model helps us to understand the process. However, while in collective memory creation the narrative commemorations are what initially breached the unity and details aided in its redress, in collective memory maintenance the narrative commemorations are the redressive mechanisms. Here, the breach is something that has occurred as a cumulative series of events over a period of time. In examining the social drama, Turner tended to focus on instances where a breach was created by a single and serious infraction of normative behavior. However, he notes that a breach may arise from the cumulative effect of a series of incidents (Turner 1982). Such breaches in this study involved both indications that something of the past had been forgotten by some members as well as specific activities and/or disagreements over time. In both situations the result was a situation where shared definitions were, at least for a moment, in question. As the crisis in the groups unity is recognized, the reminders point out past incidents as memories that should not be forgotten, connect them with other memories and present circumstances, and thus work toward reintegrating understandings of the past and present (see Figure 2). REMINDERS Reminders, defined here as the act of perpetuating recollections, are the primary mechanism through which the past is carried forward into the present. As such, they appear in one of two ways: contextually or instrumentally. First, collective memories may be revived contextually through the interaction itself. Involvement in particular interactions with other movement members, for instance, may remind participants of the recollections. Second, individuals may explicitly interject a reference to something from the past that is related to what is currently being discussed, and, in doing so, instrumentally remind others of the recollection. In either case, the revival makes explicit what of the past and present is shared and thus contributes to the unity of the collective
506
FIGURE 2: The Social Drama and Collective Memory Maintenance
identity process. The ability to provide reminders, however, depends on the presence of individuals who have knowledge of what is recollected.
So, what do you hear about . . . ?
In its first form, reminders emerge as a contextual result of interactional focal points. Halbwachs (1950) notes that collective memories are maintained and constructed in the duration of events. Others posit that they are also a result of internal contexts such as habit, repetition or custom (Assmann 1995; Shils 1981), and cultural contexts (Bodnar 1996; Schwartz 1991b). Participants, then, recollect a shared past through the collective identity process itself, via the internal or cultural contexts contained in the duration of the interaction. When the collective identity process focuses on specifics objects, the previously shared notions of these objects are made more explicit. The effect of this is to invoke a reminder of the groups unity. Although the reminders may involve any of the elements of the collective identity, the influence of a movements network of relations provides the most instructive illustration. Researchers have shown that a movements network of relations is important as it provides pools of potential participants, sites out of which it may grow, and a sphere in which practices and relationships can be developed (cf. Friedman and McAdam 1992; Gamson 1990; Gerlach and Hine 1970; Melucci 1985; Mueller 1994; Snow, Zurcher, and Ekland-Olson 1980). Additionally, the network within a movement is important as it includes shared notions of organizational forms, leadership models, communication channels, and technologies. The most salient aspect of the network, whether internal or external, involves the individuals who compose it. Prior to the official start of each SIEA and Title IX PAC meeting, for example, those who arrived early tended to chat with each other about
507
matters that appeared to be unrelated to the group itself. However, as I paid closer attention to the conversations, a general pattern emerged. I heard, for example, people ask about Native American community members: How is Bill doing? or Have you spoken with Russ lately? Ostensibly, these questions were sparked out of genuine concern or curiosity about the individuals mentioned. Still, while garnering information, the interactions concurrently served to remind other participants that they share relations with other people. Other interactions specifically involved movement members and served to unify understandings of shared networks of relations through the reminder of who is involved with the group, or who is connected to the group. Members revive collective memories of common relations as they put forth individual names and look to see if others know who was being referenced. For example, at a Title IX meeting Dena asks,
You know Sara? [looks at Jane who nods her head] Yeah, she probably wont make it this evening. There was some trouble with her roof so shes at home to get it taken care of.
Although the presentation focuses on Saras current predicament, the collective memory implicitly invoked is that Sara is a part of the network of relations. The maintenance of the collective memory occurs contextually through the interaction, and serves to remind others both of the networks composition and that the presenter shares that notion. In the flow of the moment, the participants create a shared sense of common knowledge about the groups network of relations; this shared sense contributes to a sense of unity concerning this element.
We should remember that . . .
In their second form, reminders arise as explicitly presented narrative commemorations that aid the ongoing collective identity process. In talking about current or future action, members might remind the group of past discussions, individuals, or activities. For example, at an SIEA meeting I discussed what had been sold at a recent SIEA art auction and the potential sale of a painting to the local universitys art gallery. One member, Walt, reminded the group how much the painting had cost, and where the painting had come from.
508
I found our records that showed that we paid $5,000 for that painting. If I remember, this was [a past SIEA Officers] thing. Somehow we came into some money and we were supposed to also get postcards to send to people for the conference with this on it.
Walt brings forward an event from the distant past because it relates directly to the current topic of interest. The object of reference, the painting, invoked the memory of how much the painting cost as well as the who, what, and why of its acquisition, which is narratively commemorated in the members reminder. The point of the narrative commemoration in these cases is not to provide new information so much as to ensure that the recollection of details pertaining to the object continues to be a part of the collective memory. In many cases, members provide details to lend a contextual richness to the memory. Through an informal interjection in the conversation, the memorys presence is perpetuated. For instance, references to the amount originally paid for the painting came up a number of times in future conversations as movement members lamented over the relatively small size of the final selling price. There are two interrelated properties of these reminders that are important here. The first is the instrumental use of the reminders to relate present interests with the past. The second is the position of the individuals presenting the reminders. In essence, the focus of present interests influences the developed notions of the past. Previous research has pointed to the importance of institutions, elites, and reputational entrepreneurs in the instrumental shaping of shared views of the past (cf. Benford 1996; Fine 1996; Lee and Lee 1998; Schwartz 1991b). While the present interest influences what of the past is interjected, and thus what of the past is remembered, individuals have varying abilities to shape that view. As that shared view contributes to the collective identity process, it can thus shape the unity of the group as well. Reminders were particularly important as the Title IX PAC worked to establish its own unity. Many of the reminders were interjected by individuals who were either veteran members of the program or veterans in the community. The reminders were particularly important as the group was working to redress a disruption in its unity early in the observation period. Events in the year prior to the study period had breached the unity of the parents and school personnel. According to John, a veteran to both the group and community:
509
Nothing seems to be getting done at the [City] Public Schools. A lot of our Indian kids fall through the cracks. They cant read and are not prepared for math. And now they are parents. How can they help their kids if they dont know. . . . Its not working because over the summer they got a bad feeling about the program and Indian parents shied away. We need to rectify that.
In this situation, past actions and interactions were what led to the bad feelings John mentions. As the crisis in the groups unity is recognized, the reminders point out those incidents as memories that should not be forgotten, connect them with other memories and present circumstances, and work toward reintegrating understandings of the past and present. The reminders served to redress the breach by addressing understandings of what the group has done, what it should be doing, and how it should be done. Participants provided reminders of events, activities, and goals from up to nearly a decade in the past. In other conversations, members interjected memories of the Title IX PACs past composition, including specific references to those who had served in officer positions. In each instance, the focus of the interaction on a present interest, what the group should do for example, invoked recollections of what the group had done. As such, the present focus of a conversation influenced which reminders were presented. Reminders were provided to people who, for the most part, were already aware of them. At times they would make comments like Oh yes, or I remember . . . or Thats right, I forgot about that. In effect, the reminders, while reviving the collective memories of the group, contributed to shared notions of elements in the collective identity. Instead of contributing to a brand new definition of past and present as in collective memory creation, the process in this case reestablishes the existence of shared notions about collective identity elements. The interjections of reminders addressed any number of collective identity elements, and tended to arise from within the movement itself. However, in this case, during collective memory maintenance the influences of other groups, especially a cultural group such as a tribe or what Cornell (1988; see also Nagel 1996) refers to as a supratribal ethnic identification, were important in the process. This was especially true early on in the study as the unity of the Title IX PAC was being reestablished. Reminders of culturally defined relations allowed veteran
510
members to mold both understandings of the past and the development of present interests. For example, early Title IX PAC interactions narratively commemorated the culturally defined relations between individuals and groups. Early in the observation period, there was a split between the Native American parents and the school personnel. As the current interest for the group was on what to do with the Title IX funds, the group worked to redevelop their unity around shared notions of what they should do. Maria commented,
We need to rebuild the trust between the parents and the school. Perhaps we need to bring in mediation. We need to set up a meeting with time to get parents there so we can set up a plan for them to discuss and come away to implement.
The Native American parents defined the other side of the split as school personnel who were non-Indian. Although these school personnel were veteran members who had heard the information before, the parents took the time to remind them of cultural objects and practices they felt were important in the present development of the group. In these cases, the social placement of the parents as members of a Native American community gave them the power to mold the shared views of the past and use it in developing the present. In planning for the requested mediation intervention, for example, a number of people suggested having a dinner during the meeting. Immediately following the suggestions, a grandparent, Jane, looked directly at the school personnel and commented, I think thats very important as its a very important part of our traditions. Her understood identification as a Native American gave her a certain amount of power to narratively commemorate the cultural tradition, and a certain degree of influence in developing the mediation meeting. The interplay of these memories with the present, and the parents authority in forming notions of the past and present interests, were even more evident as the group attended to membership boundaries. At the first couple of Title IX PAC meetings following the mediation, the group spent time establishing who, from those gathered and from the community, could serve as official members.6 In the following exchange, Rene, who was the outgoing president, begins to talk about
511
the next election of officers. Dena, director of federal programs for the school district, then reminds the group of its past composition.
Rene: We have four items starting with nominating the committee Dena: We need to take names of individuals from the community. They must be Native American parents. We need a minimum of six people. Maria: Can they be grandparents? Dena: Yes, they technically should be legal guardians, but if youll remember weve not enforced it the way people in special education does [many are nodding their heads]. Maria: So, they could be a grandparent who is living with the children and their parents. Dena: Yes.
Here, the present is defined with an eye to the past, and the past is revived with an eye on the present. In this case, Dena had a certain degree of power as she was the most senior member of the group: she had been in her position for eight years. Through her position she could draw upon a vast store of collective memories as well as the district and federal regulations related to carrying out the Title IX programs. The reminder she provides draws on a collective memory of membership boundaries established by past Title IX PACs. The reminder that the group had never enforced a definition of members that excluded nonlegal guardians is equally important. Given that the group is, by definition, an organization of Native American parents, the focus turns toward cultural prescriptions. Note, for instance, how recollections of culturally defined familial forms were equally, if not more, important in establishing shared notions of membership boundaries.
Maria: Are we eliminating grandparents? Dena: [her voice has a defensive upswing in its toneher eyebrows are raised and she emphasized the word I] I havent changed anything. This is your call. Rena: I like the idea of including grandparents. Maria: Well, I attend the meetings a lot and I have two grandchildren. Fred: I think its a good idea going back to traditional lines of thought, but we need to establish the committee. Maria: The reason I brought this up . . . Fred: Let me finish . . .
512
Maria: [interrupting] Well, I just think we need to use our own understanding of who raises our children and not the government regulations. Traditionally the grandparents are heavily involved in raising children. I want to know if the grandparents are invited to this table even if they dont have legal guardianship. Fred: We can debate this, and I think all should be invited and be welcome. But we need the committee. Hela: I think thats what shes saying.
In contributing to this instance of the collective identity process, the reminder presented the collective memory of a past practice, drawn from a shared culture, to help define a shared sense of the boundary. The maintenance in this case contributed to the unity of the group by interjecting reminders of collective memories concerning both movement practices and culturally defined familial relations. It is important to note a final element in the use of reminders. The time a participant spends with a movement can change his or her relation to the presentations of memories being provided. In the majority of cases, participants engaging in collective memory maintenance assume that the audience has a degree of familiarity with the information being presented. Obviously this is not always the case. The reminders, at different times, then, serve simultaneously in collective memory creation. For veteran members, reminders are just what has been described: a part of collective memory maintenance. However, for a newer member, the reminder may create a breach in the shared sense of unity. So, while the details provide contextual richness for the reminders, they may also provide the needed information for new members to redress a breach in unity.
CONCLUSION
Examining collective memory creation and maintenance can aid researchers attempting to examine the collective identity process and unity in social movements. Assessing this unity is important for exploring important questions concerning participant mobilization, commitment, and the development of movement action (Polletta and Jasper 2001). Collective memory processes work concurrently with the development of shared notions that comprise the collective identity. As was indicated above, collective memory creation and maintenance are
513
FIGURE 3: The Social Drama and Collective Memory Processes
important means for movement members to develop a unity around movement ends, means, fields of action, networks of relations, and the recollections of these elements in the movements past. They do so by playing important parts in the social dramas of everyday interaction (see Figure 3). Collective memory creation contributed to movement unity by first breaching and then redressing the breach in this unity. The interjection of information concerning the recent past that was not held by all members created a disruption in shared understandings of the movements past. Such understandings involved ideas of the movements established ends, means, fields of action, and other elements of the collective identity. Interactions after the disruption provided details of varying degrees to give participants a better sense of that past. In attending to these details, the breach in unity was redressed and unity was reestablished by incorporating old notions of the movements past with new notions concerning various elements of collective identity. Similarly, collective memory maintenance influenced movement unity by aiding in the redress of a breach in movement unity. However, rather than being localized, the breach in this case arose out of a cumulative series of events over time. The redressive mechanism of reminders ensured that elements of the movements past were drawn into the interaction and helped to reestablish the shared definitions of past and present thus helping to restore unity. Each of these processes involves the use of narrative commemorations exchanged as a part of what Gubrium (1993) refers to as of the mundane process of social construction. It is not the memories themselves that are important to the unity of a social movement, but rather that the memory processes interactively construct unity around elements of collective identity. As such, it is those who have access to the memories who have a degree of power in the ongoing construction of
514
collective identity. Highly active movement members, by virtue of their presence at events less active members may miss, for instance, can mold movement unity through collective memory creation. Similarly, veteran members potentially have a degree of power over newer members in the collective memory maintenance as they have a greater store of memories on which to draw. The implications of power in these situations, then, have implications for future examinations of the link between collective memory and collective identity. As issues of power always seem to imply, not all collective memory constructions can be taken as smooth and unchallenged. Just as they emerge in regard to collective action frames (cf. Benford 1993), disputes can emerge regarding the accuracy or even the meaning of memories. The disputes, then, can impact the collective identity process and the very unity of the movement. In this study, for instance, evidence of conflicts between movement members began to emerge. The dynamics of these disputes will need to be explored in subsequent research, specifically in light of variations in the power that movement participants have for influencing collective identity, collective memory, and the overall unity of the movement. Finally, it should be noted that in addition to a unity in time, the notions of collective memory and collective identity also imply the continuity of a social movement through time (Gongaware 2001). Past research has consistently noted the idea of movement continuity developing as a relation to the past. For example, movements have been shown to emerge from and draw on preexisting networks, submerged networks, and/or abeyance structures (Friedman and McAdam 1992; McAdam 1988; Melucci 1995; Taylor and Whittier 1992). As collective memories have been shown to have such a tremendous ability to carry the past forward into the present (Olick 1999; Schwartz 1991c, 1996; Schudson 1992), research should further examine the relationship of collective memory and collective identity. Such a focus may provide insights into how movement continuity is established and maintained. Collective memory and collective identity research have been separate areas of research even given their obvious implications for each other and, at times, their similarity in research subjects. Most notably, collective memories have been an underlying implication of previous studies on collective identities, and collective memory research has made use of social movements as objects of study. Current research
515
such as this study and the work of Timothy Kubal (2001) has begun to explore this link directly and to explore its dynamics and implications for understanding social movements. While Kubals work focuses on those collective memories drawn from the cultural heritage of Native Americans regarding the commemorations of Thanksgiving and Columbus Day, this study has directed attention to those memories that are developed in and of the movement itself. Drawing on the wealth of knowledge in collective identity and collective memory research, I have highlighted the utility of attending to both memory and identity simultaneously. Collective identities are ongoing interactive processes that, through the conduits of collective memory creation and collective memory maintenance, forge and maintain a unity among movement members.
NOTES
1. When asked directly, many of the informants preferred that I indicate their ancestral background through their tribal affiliation. Many also suggested that I use Native American or Indian whenever I refer to groups composed of multiple tribes. You will notice in the direct quotes that these terms are used interchangeably, and following their lead I will do the same here. 2. Social movement organizations are defined here as complex and formal organizations that identify their goals with a set of opinions and beliefs in a population representing preferences for changing some elements of the social structure (McCarthy and Zald 1987, 153; see also Staggenborg 1988). 3. From the beginning of the study, I made my intentions as a researcher clear to members of the movements. Then, as new people introduced themselves to others at the beginning of meetings, either I or one of the other members would inform them of what I was doing. This had drawbacks in the form of initial mistrust. However, my continued presence, the acceptance of those who already knew me, my eventual election to a position on the SIEA Board of Directors and my work as Secretary of the Board helped to diminish this mistrust. At the Title IX PAC meetings, much of this mistrust also diminished over time. However, since I was not as directly involved with Title IX, a certain degree of wariness was evident throughout the study. A few members of the Title IX PAC, particularly new ones, steered clear of me at first, or responded only briefly to comments and questions. In the end, however, the vast majority of members spoke openly with me and invited me to spend time with them, such as over coffee or lunch, so that they could provide me with more information. 4. Although evidence from other areas is presented in the following pages to support the claims, the development of the SIEA-ACNAE relationship will be the primary source of instruction on collective memory creation in this section.
516
5. I am using the term veteran here to indicate someone who has a relatively high amount of experience in the movement or community. I am avoiding the use of the term older or elder member given the cultural implications of using those terms. A veteran is not necessarily an older individual, or an elder of the community. 6. Although it was made clear to anyone who asked that all parents in the Native American community were invited to attend and contribute to the meetings, there were six official positions on the Parent Advisory Committee to which parents were elected. These individuals served to give the school the official directive of the community through their votes on programs and activities.
REFERENCES
Adams, David W. 1995. Education for extinction: American Indians and the boarding school experience. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press. Assmann, Jan. 1995. Collective memory and cultural identity. Translated by John Czaplicka. New German Critique 65:125-33. Beamish, Thomas D., Harvey Molotch, and Richard Flacks. 1995. Who supports the troops? Vietnam, the Gulf War, and the making of collective memory. Social Problems 42:344-60. Benford, Robert. 1993. Frame disputes within the nuclear disarmament movement. Social Forces 71:677-701. . 1996. Whose war memories shall be preserved? Peace Review 8:189-94. . 2002. Controlling narratives and narratives as control within social movements. In Stories of change: Narrative and social movements, edited by J. Davis, 5375. Albany: State University of New York. Billig, Michael. 1995. Rhetorical psychology, ideological thinking, and imagining nationhood. In Social movements and culture, edited by H. Johnston and B. Klandermans, 64-84. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Bodnar, John. 1996. Generational memory in an American town. Journal of Interdisciplinary History 26:619-37. Cleary, Linda Miller, and Thomas Peacock. 1998. Collected wisdom: American Indian education. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Cornell, Stephen. 1988. The return of the Native: American Indian political resurgence. New York: Oxford University Press. Cornell, Stephen, and Douglas Hartmann. 1998. Ethnicity and race: Making identities in a changing world. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. Fine, Gary Alan. 1995. Public narration and group culture: Discerning discourse in social movements. In Social movements and culture, edited by H. Johnston and B. Klandermans, 127-43. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. . 1996. Reputational entrepreneurs and the memory of incompetence: Melting supporters, partisan warriors, and images of President Harding. American Journal of Sociology 101:1159-93. . 1999. John Browns body: Elites, heroic embodiment, and the legitimation of political violence. Social Problems 46:225-49.
517
. 2002. The storied group: Social movements as bundles of narratives. In Stories of change: Narrative and social movements, edited by J. Davis, 229-45. Albany: State University of New York. Friedman, Debra, and Doug McAdam. 1992. Collective identity and activism: Networks, choices, and the life of a social movement. In Frontiers in social movement theory, edited by A. D. Morris and C. M. Mueller, 156-73. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Gamson, Joshua. 1995. Must identity movements self-destruct? A queer dilemma. Social Problems 42:390-407. Gamson, William A. 1990. The strategy of social protest. 2d ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Gerlach, Luther, and Virginia H. Hine. 1970. People, power, change: Movements of social transformation. New York: Bobbs-Merrill. Glaser, Barney. 1992. Emergence vs. forcing: Basics of grounded theory analysis. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. Glaser, Barney, and Anselm Strauss. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Albine. Gongaware, Timothy B. 2001. Finding the memory in identity: Native American social movements challenging educational institutions. Ph.D. diss., Sociology, University of NebraskaLincoln. Gubrium, Jaber F. 1993. For a cautious naturalism. In Constructionist controversies: Issues in social problems theory, edited by G. Miller and J. Holstein, 55-68. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Halbwachs, Maurice. 1925. On collective memory. Translated by L. Coser. 1992 ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. . 1950. The collective memory. Translated by F. Ditter Jr. and V. Y. Ditter. New York: Harper & Row. Hunt, Scott, and Robert Benford. 1994. Identity talk in the peace and justice movement. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 22:488-517. Ibarra, Peter, and John Kitsuse. 1993. Vernacular constituents of moral discourse: An interactionist proposal for the study of social problems. In Constructionist controversies: Issues in social problems theory, edited by G. Miller and J. Holstein, 21-54. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. James, Keith, Ernie Chavez, Fred Beauvais, Ruth Edwards, and Gene Oetting. 1995. School achievement and dropout among Anglo and Indian females and males: A comparative examination. American Indian Culture and Research Journal 19:181206. Jasper, James M. 1997. The art of moral protest: Culture, biography and creativity in social movements. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Johnston, Hank, Enrique Laraa, and Joseph Gusfield. 1994. Identities, grievances, new social movements. In New social movements: From ideology to identity, edited by E. Laraa, H. Johnson, and J. Gusfield, 3-36. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Katovich, Michael A., and Carl J. Couch. 1992. The nature of social pasts and their use as foundations for situated action. Symbolic Interaction 15:25-47.
518
Kubal, Timothy J. 2001. Collective memory and cultural change: Columbus Day, Thanksgiving, and American identity. Ph.D. diss., Department of Sociology, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Lee, Ronald, and Karen King Lee. 1998. Multicultural education in the little red schoolhouse: A rhetorical exploration of ideological justification and mythic repair. Communication Studies 49:1-18. Lipsitz, George. 1990. Time passages: Collective memory and American popular culture. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Mannheim, Karl. 1928. The problem of generations. In Essays on the sociology of knowledge, edited by K. Mannheim, 276-322. London: Routledge and Kegal Paul. McAdam, Doug. 1988. Freedom summer. New York: Oxford University Press. McCarthy, John D., and Mayer Zald. 1987. Resource mobilization and social movements: A partial theory. In Social movements: Perspectives and issues, edited by S. M. Buechler and F. K. Cylke Jr., 149-71. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield. Melucci, Alberto. 1985. The symbolic challenge of contemporary movements. In Social movements perspectives and issues, edited by S. M. Buechler and F. K. Cylke Jr., 259-74. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield. . 1995. The process of collective identity. In Social movements and culture, edited by H. Johnston and B. Klandermans, 41-63. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. . 1996. Challenging codes: Collective action in the information age. New York: Cambridge University Press. Miller, Gale, and James Holstein, eds. 1993. Constructionist controversies: Issues in social problems theory. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Mueller, Carol McClurg. 1994. Conflict networks and the origins of womens liberation. In New social movements: From ideology to identity, edited by E. Laraa, H. Johnston, and J. Gusfield, 234-63. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Nagel, Joane. 1996. American Indian ethnic renewal: Red Power and the resurgence of identity and culture. New York: Oxford University Press. Noriega, Jorge. 1992. American Indian education in the United States: Indoctrination for subordination to colonialism. In The state of Native American: Genocide, colonization and resistance, edited by M. A. Jaimes, 371-402. Boston, MA: South End Press. Olick, Jeffery K. 1999. Genre memories and memory genres: A dialogical analysis of May 8, 1945 commemorations in the Federal Republic of Germany. American Sociological Review 64:381-402. Olick, Jeffrey K., and Joyce Robbins. 1998. Social memory studies: From collective memory to the historical sociology of mnemonic practices. Annual Review of Sociology 24:105-40. Polletta, Francesca. 1998a. It was like a fever: Narrative and identity in social protest. Social Problems 45:137-59. . 1998b. Legacies and liabilities of an insurgent past: Remembering Martin Luther King, Jr, on the House and Senate floor. Social Science History 22:479-512. Polleta, Francesca, and James M. Jasper. 2001. Collective identity and social movements. Annual Review of Sociology 27:283-305.
519
Reyhner, Jon, and Jeanne Eder. 1988. A history of Indian education. In Teaching American Indian students, edited by J. Reyhner, 33-58. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Ruffins, Fath Davis. 1997. Culture wars won and lost: Ethnic museums on the mall, Part I: The National Holocaust Museum and the National Museum of the American Indian. Radical History Review 68:79-100. Schudson, Michael. 1992. Watergate in American memory: How we remember, forget, and reconstruct the past. New York: Basic Books. Schuman, Howard, and Jacqueline Scott. 1989. Generations and collective memory. American Sociological Review 54:359-81. Schwartz, Barry. 1982. The social context of commemoration: A study in collective memory. Social Forces 61:374-402. . 1991a. Iconography and collective memory: Lincolns image in the American mind. Sociological Quarterly 32:30-319. . 1991b. Mourning and the making of a sacred symbol: Durkheim and the Lincoln assassination. Social Forces 70:343-64. . 1991c. Social change and collective memory: The democratization of George Washington. American Sociological Review 56:221-36. . 1996. Memory as a cultural system: Abraham Lincoln in World War II. American Sociological Review 61:908-27. . 1998. Postmodernity and historical reputation: Abraham Lincoln in late twentieth century American memory. Social Forces 77:63-103. Shils, Edward. 1981. Tradition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Snow, David A., and Doug McAdam. 2000. Identity work processes in the context of social movement: Clarifying the identity/movement nexus. In Self, identity and social movements, edited by S. Stryker, T. Owens, and R. White, 41-67. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Snow, David A., Louis Zurcher, and Sheldon Ekland-Olson. 1980. Social networks and social movements: a microstructrual approach to differential recruitment. American Sociological Review 45:787-801. Spector, Malcolm, and John Kitsuse. 1977. Constructing social problems. Menlo Park, CA: Cummings. Spillman, Lyn. 1998. When do collective memories last? Founding moments in the United States and Australia. Social Science History 22:445-78. Staggenborg, Suzanne. 1988. The consequences of professionalization and formalization in the pro-choice movement. In Waves of protest: Social movements since the sixties, edited by J. Freeman and V. Johnson, 99-134. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Steinberg, Marc. 1998. Tilting the frame: Considerations on collective action framing from a discursive turn. Theory and Society 27:845-72. Strauss, Anselm, and Julie Corbin. 1990. Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Szasz, Margaret Connell. 1999. Education and the American Indian: The road to selfdetermination since 1928. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Taylor, Verta. 1989. Social movement continuity: The womens movement in abeyance. American Sociological Review 54:761-75.
520
Taylor, Verta, and Nancy Whittier. 1992. Collective identity in social movement communities: Lesbian feminist mobilization. In Frontiers in social movement theory, edited by A. D. Morris and C. M. Mueller, 104-29. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. . 1995. Analytical approaches to social movement culture: The culture of the womens movement. In Social movements and culture, edited by H. Johnston and B. Klandermans, 163-87. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Turner, Victor. 1969. The ritual process: Structure and anti-structure in human society. Chicago, IL: Aldine Press. . 1982. From ritual to theatre: The human seriousness of play. New York: PAJ. Wagner-Pacifici, Robin, and Barry Schwartz. 1991. The Vietnam Veterans Memorial: Commemorating a difficult past. American Journal of Sociology 97:376-420. Williams, Gwyneth, and Rhys Williams. 1995. All we want is equality: Rhetorical framing in the fathers rights movement. In Images of issues: Typifying contemporary social problems, edited by J. Best, 191-212. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Zamponi, Simonetta Falasca. 1998. Of storytellers and master narratives: Modernity, memory, and history in Fascist Italy. Social Science History 22:415-44. Zelizer, Barbie. 1995. Reading the past against the grain: The shape of memory studies. Critical Studies in Mass Communication 12:213-39. Zerubavel, Eviatar. 1996. Social memories: Steps to a sociology of the past. Qualitative Sociology 19:283-99. Zerubavel, Yael. 1995. Recovered roots: Collective memory and the making of Israeli national tradition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Memórias Coletivas e Identidades

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Memórias Coletivas e Identidades

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Journal of Contemporary Ethnography

JOURNAL OF Gongaware / COLLECTIVE CONTEMPORARY IDENTITIES ETHNOGRAPY / OCTOBER 2003

COLLECTIVE MEMORIES AND COLLECTIVE IDENTITIES

JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY ETHNOGRAPY / OCTOBER 2003

Gongaware / COLLECTIVE IDENTITIES

JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY ETHNOGRAPY / OCTOBER 2003

UNITY THROUGH IDENTITY AND MEMORY

Gongaware / COLLECTIVE IDENTITIES

JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY ETHNOGRAPY / OCTOBER 2003

MNEMONIC PRACTICES AND NARRATIVE COMMEMORATIONS

Gongaware / COLLECTIVE IDENTITIES

JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY ETHNOGRAPY / OCTOBER 2003

Gongaware / COLLECTIVE IDENTITIES

JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY ETHNOGRAPY / OCTOBER 2003

METHOD AND SETTING

Gongaware / COLLECTIVE IDENTITIES

JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY ETHNOGRAPY / OCTOBER 2003

Gongaware / COLLECTIVE IDENTITIES

COLLECTIVE MEMORY CREATION

JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY ETHNOGRAPY / OCTOBER 2003

Gongaware / COLLECTIVE IDENTITIES

FIGURE 1: The Social Drama and Collective Memory Creation

JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY ETHNOGRAPY / OCTOBER 2003

Gongaware / COLLECTIVE IDENTITIES

JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY ETHNOGRAPY / OCTOBER 2003

Gongaware / COLLECTIVE IDENTITIES

JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY ETHNOGRAPY / OCTOBER 2003

Gongaware / COLLECTIVE IDENTITIES

Redefining past and present

JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY ETHNOGRAPY / OCTOBER 2003

COLLECTIVE MEMORY MAINTENANCE

Gongaware / COLLECTIVE IDENTITIES

JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY ETHNOGRAPY / OCTOBER 2003

FIGURE 2: The Social Drama and Collective Memory Maintenance

Gongaware / COLLECTIVE IDENTITIES

JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY ETHNOGRAPY / OCTOBER 2003

Gongaware / COLLECTIVE IDENTITIES

JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY ETHNOGRAPY / OCTOBER 2003

Gongaware / COLLECTIVE IDENTITIES

JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY ETHNOGRAPY / OCTOBER 2003

Gongaware / COLLECTIVE IDENTITIES

FIGURE 3: The Social Drama and Collective Memory Processes

JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY ETHNOGRAPY / OCTOBER 2003

Gongaware / COLLECTIVE IDENTITIES

JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY ETHNOGRAPY / OCTOBER 2003

Gongaware / COLLECTIVE IDENTITIES

JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY ETHNOGRAPY / OCTOBER 2003

Gongaware / COLLECTIVE IDENTITIES

JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY ETHNOGRAPY / OCTOBER 2003

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi