Collective Memory And Cultural Landscapes

The relationship between collective memory and the formation or construction of cultural landscapes is the importance that society feels when preserving or creating a unique landscape that gives a memory of what an area looked like in the past. Geoffrey Cubitt in History and Memory defines this idea of memory and cultural landscapes by stating that this relationship is the awareness of the past, which is preserved or created by society for their memory (Cubitt, 15-16). With this quote, Cubitt gives the impression that the relationship between memory and cultural landscapes lies within the perseveration of these historic landscapes. This connection of memory and cultural landscapes is also seen in Miller’s article where he states that through the National Park Service’s construction of roads to isolated parks, tourist gained access to these sites, which then motivated the nation to preserve these landscapes (Miller, 77). Miller’s statement suggests this motivation to preserve the public’s only memory of the landscapes of the nation’s past ultimately brought the connection of memory and cultural landscapes closer together.
When reviewing the quotes given in the lecture by J.B. Jackson, the question present is whether the act of historic
preservation can be considered as curating. The conservation of these landscapes reflects the preservation of human culture, much like the curating and collecting of artifacts shows mankind’s past in a museum. With this comparison, both show the history of the human race and give its background. However, the idea of memory and the conservation of cultural landscapes can cause controversies and even the destruction of these historical landscapes as society argues over what is worth preserving. An example of this controversy is the Fresno Sanitary Landfill in California. While, the landfill gives historical awareness to the development of improvements made between sanitary procedures and the natural environment, parts of the public felt that the landfill was not worthy of preservation and decided to construct a park on a portion of the site as a way of preserving the landscape (Bluestone, 260). Though most of the landfill is still intact, this shows an example of how preservation can be used as a means of destruction and how a society can construct a memory around a particular cultural landscape. Another form of preservation that is seen, as destruction, is growth and economic changes within a town or city. Wallace states this by giving the example of the roads that were constructed in the downtown areas of many towns and cities in the 1960s, which involved the leveling of many historic buildings and districts (Wallace, 186).
Public historians can successfully navigate through memory, place, and landscape construction by identifying the relationship and importance that each share together.
Demonstrated through the efforts to preserve cultural landscapes, the public historian must understand the importance and attachments that the public memory has to the places that they inhabit (Bluestone, 15). With this idea of the public’s memory and attachments to certain places, the historian can then understand what qualifies as successful landscape construction and preservation. Once the historian understands this, they will then comprehend the relationship between these three ideas and how to preserve the landscapes that remind the public of the
past.