Forgetting can be seen as an escape from trauma, pain, grief, or guilt. It can also be used to distance oneself from one's past, to move on, or to avoid accountability.
Some argue that remembering the past helps to learn from mistakes and prevent future tragedies. Others suggest that forgetfulness can help to free oneself from obligations or responsibilities.
If someone has experienced a violent attack, they may choose to forget it to protect themselves from reliving the experience repeatedly. This may lead to detachment from others, but it could also allow them to live a more peaceful life without being haunted by what happened. On the other hand, remembering such events might keep someone alert and vigilant against similar situations. Thus, memory is seen both as a burden and a tool for survival.
The idea of institutionalized memory refers to how societies or institutions shape collective memories through education systems, museums, monuments, cultural symbols, media narratives, and historical discourses. These structures serve to maintain power hierarchies, promote certain identities, and suppress others. Therefore, it becomes difficult to access alternative perspectives or challenge dominant narratives. The co-optation of memory involves using it to legitimize particular ideologies or political agendas. Such manipulation can occur via selective presentation, distortion, omission, and exaggeration of facts.
Governments may use their control over public memory to justify policies and decisions that benefit only a privileged few. Memory can thus become an instrument of oppression and domination.
Forgetting can be viewed as a radical act when faced with these forces. It allows individuals to break away from social norms, defy expectations, and resist hegemonic ideas. By refusing to conform to established standards, one can create new possibilities for self-expression and liberation. In this sense, forgetting becomes a form of resistance against authoritarianism, patriarchy, racism, homophobia, or any system that seeks to impose conformity. It can also empower those who have been marginalized or oppressed by giving them agency over their own memories. They no longer need to rely on dominant narratives but can construct their own stories based on personal experiences and values. This can lead to greater empathy and understanding between different groups.
The ability to forget is not equally distributed. Those in positions of power often have more resources to shape collective memory and exercise control over the past.
There are risks involved in denying historical events and suppressing the truth. Forgetting can result in complacency and inaction, leading to repetition of past mistakes and tragedies. Therefore, it requires careful consideration before engaging in intentional amnesia.
Both remembering and forgetting have ethical and political consequences, which should be carefully weighed before choosing either path.
Can forgetting itself function as a radical ethical or political act when memory is co-opted or institutionalized?
Yes, forgetting can be an ethical or political act if it means refusing to conform to the dominant narratives of power that seek to control our memories. Forgetting can also be a way of reclaiming our own stories, breaking free from the constraints imposed by society, and creating new ways of remembering. Memory institutions such as museums, monuments, and archives have long been used to enforce particular historical narratives, erasing alternative perspectives and marginalizing certain groups.