Where does memory stand in relation to art and culture? In the ‘Predicament of Culture’, James Clifford addresses certain key concepts that raise interest in his two essays Histories of the Tribal and the Modern and On Collecting Art and Culture. He gives us an idea of the appropriation of art and culture and also mentions the concept museums employ as they play a significant role in fusing the tribal to the modern. James Clifford appears to call this ‘affinity’- a term that connotes a common quality or essence that joins the tribal to the modern. The impact of the West or 3rd world modernisms as well as museums upon art, culture and tribal continues to stand as a crucial issue upon the very act of memory itself. So, the question lies at the very base of the relation between ‘Culture and Memory’.

The Naga culture is the defining mark of the identity of the Naga people. They are the mongoloid tribes inhabiting the hilly regions between the Brahmaputra River in India and the Chindwind River in Myanmar. The Naga people have many festivals, rituals, beliefs and practices like head-hunting, folk songs, folk dances that make up a rich cultural heritage. An ancient sport no longer in practice today, head-hunting was a sign of bravery. The enemy is hunted down with a spear, arrow or dao and their heads are chopped off and carried home as trophies. A notion of ‘might was right’ connected with religious ceremonies and rites was carried out. But the memory of all this has changed in modern times and been appropriated in different ways and approaches. Some may call it ‘uncivilised barbarism’ and ‘anarchism’ but in the past, it was a highly acceptable practice of valour and bravery. Same memories elicit different responses. Now, how has this memory been passed on and survived the test of time? In the past, the spread of Naga culture had a great deal to do with its basis on oral narratives, stories, folk-tales and folk songs- all the work of the face. So, the memory is manifested through speech, which is the dominant communicative system since there was no script then. But, a very significant question remains – Are the thoughts and experiences relayed adequate representations of the memory of this particular community or culture? We know that memory is intangible and at the same time desires to transcend and longs for a body to conserve. This has led to the establishment of libraries, museums and archives in order to conserve and preserve this particular memory or episode. In this act of memory into a concrete form James Clifford states that 20th century perception of art and culture has paralleled to become ‘an incorporation of a plethora of non-western artifacts and customs’. An ‘archaizing system’ of collecting for profit or scientific knowledge has emerged. This has further led to the hierarchy of values attributed to these artifacts and customs.
Every culture has its own way of grappling with memory. Culture deals with the representation of memory. Today, we find another technique of grappling with all this - the emergence of script and writing or symbols; all promoted by libraries, museums and other externalizing forces. Museums have made attempts to expose this concept of a memory of a culture. When James Clifford refers to museums we learn that there are many types like the Modern Ethnographic Museum, Art Museum, all having different ways of appropriating and authenticating various objects and customs. Objects are placed in specific lived contexts. It takes up the position that identities are being made and re-made. We, in the present are looking back into the past for survival, preservation in an attempt at making a future. This prescribes to what Martin Heidegger says ‘Memory becomes a gathering of thoughts’. The past calls for a different kind of future. But crucial here is what kind of a future is being re-made? What identity of a culture are we actually remembering or gathering? With each act of memory, new memories are being made while some are being destroyed and one’s experience or thoughts are not same to the memory of that particular lived moment. According to Gayatri Spivak our cultural memory is a boon that has led to a curse. A curse because we have not yet learned to begun to ask what and who we are. The answer to the question still remains to be found ‘what is our real identity? Is our culture what our memory really remembers or manipulations of memory? We know that sense can never be archived. The memory of our sense cannot be adequately represented. Yet we feel a pressing need to continue to archive our memories.

Earlier it was stated that speech was the dominant communicative system of the memory of the Naga culture. More recent times have seen the emergence of books, documents, articles, museums and other devices of externalized display, of one’s cultural practices and identity. The role of writing or symbolization expresses a desire for continuity and they become external manifestations of speech systems. Derrida asks a very important question regarding the ability of writing to represent speech systems accurately. All signs, writers or artists cannot represent senses or sound adequately. This emerges the crises between memory and symbols. Limitations, boundaries and regimentations arise by the problem of the symbol. The body always appears to try to grapple with this. The same glory and honour felt by a Naga head hunter is not felt by the individual who reads or hears of it today. So, the same memory elicits different types of responses. This is what James Clifford seems to be getting at when he talks about collecting art and culture. Some objects are looked at on a cultural and humanely interesting level while some only look at the beauty and origin. Largely he deals with the authenticity of appropriating the memory of an object or custom.
A complexity distinguishes human beings from other life forms. Gourhan says the distinguishing factor to be ethnic memory. Ethnic habits shared by a group or people emerge by a conscious choice called breaching. This delineates the distinctiveness of humans and human memory. These practices are that of the face and the hand namely speech and gesture and embodied and externalized memory respectively. Symbols begin to represent themselves out of this evolving hierarchy. Therefore, the crucial distinction between species and ethnic memory is that of symbolization. Memory becomes an inseparable part of the body. Can memories then ever be free of bodies? Are bodies the mere means for externalizing these memories? The Nagas had a past that extended further orally but now there is an infusion of both the oral and the writing/object/body. The Naga culture has been taken up as an art that James Clifford says is a category ‘defined and redefined in specific historical contexts and relations of power’. If we look at the way the intricate tribal objects have been projected and externalized the idea of a culture and of collecting in museums have become an ‘objectification of commodities’. For example, a Naga shawl put up on display in a Museum will be admired for its beauty and intricate design. Each shawl specifically made for a male or female, elder or youth depending upon rank and merit. Although a part of the tribal essence is conveyed in the Museum by each design, pattern or colour, a question still remains. Can the true sense of spirit of that moment be actually felt now as it was then? However, although doubts about conveying the true sense of the spirit of a culture in museums or through writing, the undeniable fact remains that there is yet a heavy dependence upon these modes of externalization of art and culture. We do not dispense of such means at attempts of capturing memory. Could it be owing to the fact that like Gourhan says ‘Freedom of behaviour is attainable only at the level of symbols, not of actions’. The possibility of choice of symbols which actions manifest enables a transcendence of species memory. Even in the MOMA an exact and accurate history is told. The notion of ‘affinity’ is asserted in a didactic manner. Memory, body and symbols become an inseparable means for dealing with culture.

In the words of Walter Paul ‘Culture is the totality of group ways of thought and action duly accepted and followed by a group of people.’ So, ultimately the thoughts of that group then are what are being appropriated as authentic memories by the present for the benefit of making a new future. This brings us on to another aspect regarding the relation between memory and communication systems. Does the act of memory become an act of persuasion or is it the truth? Does speech, writing or rhetoric have to do with truth or are they acts of persuasion? Similarly, do museums or collecting art and culture try to assert the truth or is it a mere act of persuasion?

The Naga people witnessed a great upheaval with the advent of Christianity in 1875 and modern education that has had a strong effect on the culture as well. Preservation of the rich Naga culture was not encouraged by the Christian missionaries. Some memories of cultural artifacts have been preserved while others have been lost. Memory comes into question here. Is it the truth or are they persuasions to remember some while forgetting or losing others? This important question leaves us thinking about the notion of culture and memory in Naga Society and James Clifford’s ideas of the tribal and modern. Ultimately, the whole idea of appropriation and authenticity of externalization of a culture lies in the memory that remains forever intangible. The only certainty that remains is the pressing need to gather more and externalize, as they can never be extinguished.