ABSTRACT
When the authors of this volume were asked ‘to reflect on [y]our own work through the prism of [y]our companions’, I was somewhat apprehensive. The social sciences never had the kind of personal awakening like say ‘new journalism’ or some of the humanities driven by a more subjective approach to writing, even if most of the research questions we pose involve some form of subjectivity and their intellectual sublimation. Yet this rarely detracts from the ‘scientific’ expectations heeded by most academics, to refrain from inserting themselves into their narratives. Detachment, Wertfreiheit and other tales from the scientific crib remain the standards that confer legitimacy on our work. So how to go about this unfamiliar genre without giving in to the temptations to unleash one’s narcissistic homo academicus? I do not claim to have a satisfactory answer to this conundrum. What I will say though is that having to address the topic of memory (or any other substantive intellectual engagement for that matter) from this personal perspective carries the potential yield of an increase in reflexivity. So I hope that the following comments will generate productive insights on memory and its study. Accordingly, I want to take the chronology of my memory work as a trigger for some broader reflections on the field of memory studies.
