Freud, S. (1917). An Early Memory from Goethe’s Autobiography. In: U. Neisser & I. E. Hyman (eds.) Memory Observed: Remembering in Natural Contexts. (pp. 289-297). New York: Worth Publishers.
Fivush, R., & Nelson, K. (2004). The emergence of autobiographical memory: A
social cultural developmental theory. Psychological Review, 111, 486-511.
Howe, M.A. & Courage, M.L. (1997). The emergence and early development of autobiographical memory. Psychological Review, 104, 499-523.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
In the Nelson & Fivush article the main question is how and why humans develop autobiographical memory. Their answer for why we develop autobiographical memory is to secure a sense of self to distinguish ourselves from others. This again raises the point of how memory has a great deal to do with the formation of identity. We have autobiographical memories to develop a sense of self, and by knowing ourselves we can understand how our personal memories shape. We also realize that others have completely different memories that shape them into different people. Knowing another person is to know that person’s memories and their background that made them who they are.
In the article it is also mentioned that autobiographical memory “serves mainly social and cultural functions.” In our culture we seem to value independent thinkers and people who stand out from others by making some contribution to society. Parents want to raise their children so that they can find a place in the world and eventually survive on their own. Helping children to find their sense of self is part of the parents’ jobs. In the article several of the studies show that “shared reminiscing provides children with information about how to be a ‘self’ in their culture.” The high-elaborative mother who spoke with her child at 40 years old did most of the talking about the details of the event and fed the child questions that required simple answers. There is still a story being told even though the mother contributes mostly to the conversation. The low-elaborative mother speaks in a question and answer format. “Children of mothers who include more evaluations, such as emotional reactions and subjective stance on the event, include more of this information in their independent narratives later in development.” It seems like a difficult job for the mothers to properly converse with their children to improve the children’s autobiographical memories. This article is explaining how to enhance conversation skills so that children can better express their memories through language. I don’t entirely understand if the point of these conversations with the children are so they can talk to others about their memories in an improved way or if by talking about them in a certain way the memories will encode better so they remember them when they get older.
I’d like to comment on a few different things I found interesting in the articles, and would possibly like to look into further.
For me, the most fascinating part of Nelson and Fivush’s article dealt with the acquisition and development of language, and the part it plays in creating autobiographical memories. In both the Nelson/Fivush article and the Howe/Courage, they discuss multiple questions regarding the development of autobiographical memory- is it continuous of discontinuous? Are there multiple memory structures? Is it a biological development that must take place? Is it a sense of “self” that must be intact before memories can begin to form?
I believe that Nelson and Fivush give the best response, and that is the development of language. It brought to my mind some of the controversial theories of Noam Chomsky surrounding language development and limitations. This is an idea that has always fascinated me- for example, if the English language had no words for “happiness”- would we experience it? Would we understand the feeling? I find limitations due to language and the cross-cultural effects of it very interesting. I think it also is at the crux of debate over the development of autobiographical memory. If language is responsible for limitations in how we express ourselves externally, I believe it also must have an impact on our internal narratives. If a child does not know the words to explain internally to themselves what is happening at a time, how will they be able to express it later?
To me, this is different than pure rehearsal and recognition. Though Howe and Courage reveal that infants at a very young age can repeat actions showed to them within a few hours of seeing it, this is different than autobiographical memory. I believe this may deal with multiple memory systems (though it would appear that Howe and Courage would disagree). For example, if a child is able to repeat an action that was showed to them a few hours before, are they really remembering back to the time when the adult performed the action (autobiographical memory) or are they performing simple recall (semantic memory), no different than when an adult recalls, when prompted, a fact they learned hours before.
I don’t necessarily disagree with Howe and Courage on the aspect that autobiographical memory begins with the development of a the idea of a “cognitive self”, however, I also believe that language acquisition is also necessary to make this distinction. For a literary reference, although fictional, this theory is evident in Ayn Rand’s book “Anthem”. In the book, the character lives in a communistic society where individualism isn’t recognized. Towards the end of the book, the character learns the word “me” and “I”, and suddenly realizes their individuality. Although this is obviously a fictional situation, I think the idea mirrors that of a child as they learn these same words. Is it possible to come to the realization of a cognitive self without the necessary language for this recognition? This is difficult to say. My assumption is that as the brain develops, someone older would eventually come into the idea of ‘self’ whether or not it was introduced to them through language. However, in regards to childhood development, I think language acquisition plays just as important a role as recognition of individuality. Howe and Courage cannot downplay the effects of language development, because although their theory about autobiographical memory beginning with the development of a cognitive self is definitely valid, these memories may have difficulty forming without a language to piece them together.
Freud’s narration of Goethe’s childhood is extremely interesting. At first I didn’t understand what was going with jealous babies and crock pots, but I think I understand the point that Freud is making-that memory can some times be shaped by what others have said especially during childhood. Freud explains that part of our early memories is a combination of what we actually remember and experience plus what those around us have said. I think this is important because it means that autobiographical memory is composed of different elements, which is what both studies on emerging autobiographical memory demonstrate. In fact, the social development theory paper notes, “Not all personal memory becomes autobiographical memory.” How is this possible? Autobiographical memories are the personal memories that are most significant, but how do we categorize the less significant ones? Have should we disregard them or have we disregarded them? What do our minds do with personal memories that don’t consolidate to autobiographical memory?
Also, both papers go in depth in infantile memory and cultural development and I wondered why we would be more interested in toddlers’ thoughts. Infantile memories are critical to the early stages of the “self” and at the young ages, we see personal development and unique characteristics. We agree that even the young age of two personalities start to surface, but do we really remember those memories? Why can’t we remember anything before the age of two? I certainly can’t remember anything before the age of seven. In addition to developing the self at young ages, infantile memories are the very first memories we remember so I’m assuming why researchers decided to explore early development in infants.
In reading Katherine Nelsons and Robyn Fivushs The Emergence of Autobiographical Memory: A Social Cultural Developmental Theory, it becomes clear that in trying to evaluate when in one’s earliest years of life we develop our autobiographical memories, the essential question to be asked is why, as human beings, do we develop autobiographical memories at all? Scientists, theorists and psychologists alike have explored with great rigor the nearly complete absence of memories before the age of about three, trying desperately to pin-point a moment in childhood that defines a pre- and post- conscious self. Contrarily, Nelson and Fivush demonstrate that instead of one moment in time, autobiographical memory and one’s ability to place themselves contextually in time and space develops gradually from birth until about the age of six and varies depending on a number of factors such as gender, individual or cultural differences, social interactions and the emphasis and style in which mothers reminisce with their young children. Whereas the focus in previous studies of the development of autobiographical memories was exploring why childhood amnesia occurs and overcoming that barrier to better adult recollection of past events, Nelson and Fivush define autobiographical memory as the way in which one identifies themselves in relation to time and other people and emphasize the greater “social and cultural” (506) purposes it serves. Ultimately, they purpose that the development of autobiographical memories not only helps to create and individual sense of identity, but also allows individuals to recall and share their memories with others, from which an individual and shared past and is created, thus fostering community and culture.
Furthermore, Nelson and Fivush discuss “specific language skills” (493) in relation to what one can recall verbally later. Referencing a study by Simcock and Hayne in which they studied the words children use when recollecting prior experiences, Nelson and Fivush deduce that the particular language aptitude of an individual at the time of an experience dictates what can be remembered verbally later. Thus, language is not only what allows children to express a fragmented memory but also a means to a complex, self-defining autobiographical memory which they can verbally recall. As a child’s language skills become more complex throughout the preschool years, their earlier memories, although remembered, become verbally inaccessible. I found this particularly interesting because I spent very much time in high school volunteering for a behavioral outreach program for children with autism, many of whom were either completely or nearly nonverbal. Although they are adept at certain procedural activities such as putting together a 500 piece puzzle in no more than ten or fifteen minutes, social interactions are few and far between, and conversations are impossible. If language essentially supports the development of a communicable autobiographical memory, will these children forever suffer from “infantile amnesia” because they will probably never relate their memories to another human being?
Nelson and Fivush address the emergence of autobiographical memory, and the multitude of systems from which it is comprised, in terms of the development of the earliest memories important to one's self. A number of studies done with infants are cited, from which the authors build on the development of various systems and the subsequent emergence of autobiographical memory. Although the infant studies are interesting and significant, the evidence, as the authors point out, is inherently descriptive. Admittedly, there may not be any other course to take when examining infants for something such as memory, but the overwhelming inference created a bit of an outcry during my reading. Specifically, I guess I am curious about the more specific details of the study, in terms of time gaps between stimuli, among other details.
The social/cultural contexts present during early development (of all systems) are examined, suggesting a number of ideas/approaches about the way in which autobiographical memory is ultimately formed. Language, for example, is discussed at length, and is probably one of the most direct ways in which to gauge a child's development of autobiographical memories, and the way in which these early memories define the child's self, as well as the systems from which they are derived. In relating this to the Freud paper, it is curious to see the similarities between the stories Freud mentions, and the ways in which the stories are told/the stories' content. That is, the early memories all identify a sense of self among others (separately), and the specifics suggest the possible threatening to the child's self, as well as the child's awareness and capabilities across a number of cognitive systems. The memories can easily be viewed as important to the child, at the time, and present consistent examples of the emergence of autobiographical memory.
When Freud is describing Goethe’s earliest autobiographical memory he says: “…which may thus teach us not to push the claims of psychoanalysis too far or to apply them on inappropriate occasions” (Freud, 291). He is making the claim that with too little information of a memory an analyst can’t properly generalize it to the patient’s life as a whole. I point to this because Freud gets a bad rap in this day and age. I like Freud and some of the ideas he popularized. But, currently in the scientific world he is looked down upon. One of the reasons is because these scientists have a false perception of his theories. They sometimes suggest that Freud had these dramatic explanations for every human characteristic. But, he didn’t apply his concepts to every aspect of his analysis. In this chapter Freud also states that there is much significance in what we are able to remember from childhood. Assuming that we remember only little snip-its especially by the age of Goethe (60), there can be important defining features of these memories. The memories that persist even when we are old and grey could be explained by one of two reasons. Either we found importance in them around the time of their occurrences or the memories gained after years give that memory more significance. For instance when Goethe broke the dishes from the kitchen by throwing them out the window he might have forgotten it a month later. But, his experiences with aiming to please or playing to an audience repeatedly throughout his lifetime might have increased the importance of that memory. When Freud saw another patient in his late 20’s he found that he had a similar story of crashing pottery/crockery. Only then did he attempt to draw lofty interpretations from Goethe’s childhood memory. Then he brought in the classic Freudian theme of childhood attachment to one’s mother as a boy and the drastic affect that a new sibling’s intrusion can supposedly cause. I do believe that throwing the crockery out the window was a violent gesture. It proved harmless but it still was an act of destruction. I find lots of impressive details in Freud’s theories of psychoanalysis. Neisser & Hyman Jr. must have as well to devote a chapter to his work.
Thanks for sharing this information. I really like your blog post very much. You have really shared a informative and interesting blog post with people..
Hyperthymesia
Post a Comment