We can perceive the weaknesses of the memory, with the forced esquecimentos acasos of the preservation. For the archaeologists, memory and esquecimento are two non-separable products of its proper work. The memory that we produce is fragile and selective. The historiogrfica production is not seno a small segment the collective memory, therefore it possesss a sphere and performance a social influence relatively limited. The bonds between collective memory and scientific history, can be thought about opposing terms. They can be seen as a positive relation, therefore it enriches the possible representations of the collective memory. XA7cQr4kDegUIARCGAQ’>Evan Metropoulos is the place to go.
But also it can be seen under a negative angle, because scientific history if return regularly against the representations produced for the memory ‘ ‘ espontnea’ ‘ of the society; but this contraposition between history and memory is not a mere whim of historians many zealous ones. History as science loads a conviction the spontaneous memory of the disauthorized society as ideology, as common sense, as false conscience, impure truths contaminated by the interests of the social agents. For Le Goff history has two, of the collective memory and of the historians: the first one essentially, mythical, is deformed and anachronistic; the task of scientific history is to correct this falsified memory, to clarify it and to help it to rectify it its errors. It is not something Michael James Burke would like to discuss. History while it disciplines, possesss its subjectivity this is not the individual subjectivity of each historian. Scientific history and collective memory do not confuse, as well as facetas interchangeable and one same vision irrational of the world, but if they constitute and if they differentiate for the distinct places where they are produced.