Rethinking technologies of remembering for a postcolonial world

Abstract

This article sets out some of the analytical moves that are necessary to developing a distinctive area of research called postcolonial memory studies. A key barrier to synthesising insights from postcolonial and memory studies has been a reductive approach to analogue and digital technologies which operate as vehicles for memory. Three analytical moves are needed to decentre, or at the very least de-naturalise the technological narratives and ecologies of Europe and the US. Media memory studies needs to draw more effectively on postcolonial studies to position mediated memory as inextricably connected to the legacies of colonialism and empire; develop a much broader account of media infrastructures emerging from what is increasingly characterised as ‘global media studies’; make an empirical and analytical shift away from the primacy of digital communications technologies and to explore technologies, not just as artefacts but as knowledge generating cultural practices. The combined value of these three shifts in approaches to media and communications technologies in memory studies research has considerable potential for developing postcolonial media memory studies research which offers a thorough and empirically grounded analysis of the complex ways in which the legacies of colonialism shape and structure the ways in which practices and performances of remembering are mediated in contemporary social life. This shift towards postcolonial memory studies can be seen as part of the wider project of what Anna (Amza) Reading has in this volume called ‘rewilding memory’ by rethinking ‘the underlying ecologies of knowledge within studies of memory’.

Shall the robots remember? Conceptualising the role of non-human agents in digital memory communication

“…One more important consideration is that technological infrastructures behind human-to-robot and robot-to-robot memory communication are systems of power. Similar to other communication technologies (Flew and Liu 2016), these infrastructures are strongly connected to other elements of digital capitalism and are often embedded in the systems of colonial relations responsible for ‘the maintenance of political, economic, and cultural inequities’ (Keightley 2022, 2). Such embedding is conceptually concerning and can result in a number of additional challenges, including, for instance, the promotion of Western-centric bias by robotic agents.…”

The user is dead, long live the platform? Problematising the user-centric focus of (digital) memory studies

“…Similar to other data-driven technologies (Couldry and Mejias, 2019; D’Ignazio and Klein, 2020), memory infrastructures are embedded into the relations of power and can not only challenge but also reinforce these relations (Keightley, 2022). A number of contributions to the field of critical data studies highlight how technical infrastructures can reiterate structural injustices by amplifying discrimination towards marginalised communities (e.g.…”

“…Furthermore, it causes an often simplified understanding of human agency in the context of memory-making despite it undergoing profound changes due to humans increasingly interacting with and being affected by non-human actors (for examples of such agency transformations in other contexts, see Hepp, 2022; Hintze and Dunn, 2022). Thus, achieving an in-depth understanding of the role of memory infrastructures is crucial for developing more critical perspectives on the relationship between digital technology and remembrance, for instance, informed by postcolonial (Keightley, 2022) and political economy studies (Reading, 2014), in particular considering the growing concerns about the differentiated – and often discriminatory – treatment of certain individuals and groups by the online platforms in the context other than remembrance (e.g. Cahn et al, 2019; Noble, 2018; Urman and Makhortykh, 2022).…”