This calendar has a list of suggested readings and activities. As we move forward and discuss needs and interests, we may introduce changes: Did you come across an article that you would really like to discuss with the class? Let’s add it or replace one of my suggested readings. Did you find or do you know of a digital memory project that you’d like to discuss with your peers and me? Bring it to our attention and we’ll make room for it in the syllabus. Do you think that the topic organization can be improved? We can move things around.

Note: The (L) at the end of a reading indicates that the whole book is available online within the CUNY library system.

January 31- Contexts

• Introductions
• What do we mean by “memory”? What are “Memory Studies”?
• Discussion of syllabus and class routines

February 7- Why “memory”?

Read these three texts and annotate two of them with Hypothesis:

Readings & assignments

• Choose a day here to lead one reading discussion during the semester. In the same document, choose a day to discuss a digital project and select which projects you would like to review.
• Read these three texts and annotate two of them with Hypothes.is:
  • “Funes, the memorius” (Ficciones, Jorge Luis Borges, 1944).
  • Blight, D. (2009). The memory boom: Why and why now? In P. Boyer & J. Wertsch (Eds.), Memory in Mind and Culture (pp. 238-251). Cambridge University Press.
  • Rigney, A. (2018). Remembering hope. Transnational activism beyond the traumatic. Memory Studies, 11(3), 368–380.
• Watch Miriam Posner’s video “How did you make that?” and begin working on your first project review (due on February 14) here. Follow these guidelines prepared by Brianna Caszatt during the Spring 21 semester.

February 14- To remember or to forget?

• First project review is due today.

Readings:

• Assmann, A. (2012). To remember or to forget: Which way out of a shared history of violence? In A. Assmann & L. Shortt, Memory and political change (pp. 53-71). Palgrave Macmillan. (L)
• Bruyneel, K. (2013). The trouble with amnesia: Collective memory and colonial injustice in the United States. In G. Berk, D. C. Galvan, & V. Hattam (Eds.), Political creativity : Reconfiguring institutional order and change (pp. 236-257). U. Pensylvannia P. (L)
• Hoskins, A. (2014). The right to be forgotten in post-scarcity culture. In A. Ghezzi et al., The ethics of memory in a digital age: Interrogating the right to be forgotten (pp. 50-64). Palgrave Macmillan. (L)

Also, please prepare to discuss one of these projects, along with the review written by a past cohort:

• Slave Revolt in Jamaica, 1760-1761: A Cartographic Narrative
  • Manifold review of Slave Revolt in Jamaica

• 858 An Archive of Resistance
  • Manifold review of 858

And begin working on your second project review (due on February 28).

February 21- Monday schedule 

February 28- Archives

• Second project review is due today.

Readings:

Read these three texts. Annotate two of them with Hypothesis. 

• Baines, J. (2020). Archiving. In Baker, M., Blaagaard, B., Jones, H. & Pérez-González, L., Routledge encyclopedia of citizen media. Routledge.
• Agostinho, D. (2019). Archival encounters: Rethinking access and care in digital colonial archives. Archival Science, 19(2), 141-165.
• Montenegro, M. (2019). Unsettling evidence: An anticolonial archival approach/reproach to Federal Recognition. Archival Science, 19(2), 117–140.

And…

• Begin working on your third project review (due on March 14).

March 7- Oral history

Class guest:

• Marisa Iovino will present her Spring 2022 Digital Memory class project. 
  • Marisa’s proposal: “The Real Psyop is Maintaining Sanity: Being Online During the Ukrainian and Russian War”
  • Marisa’s project 

Readings:

Read these three texts and annotate two of them with Hypothesis:

• Thomson, A. (2007). Four paradigm transformations in oral history. The Oral History Review, 34(1), 49-71.
• Sloan, S. (2014). Swimming in the exaflood: Oral history as information in the digital age. In D. Boyd & M. Larson (Eds.), Oral history and digital humanities. Voice, access, and engagement (pp. 175-186). Palgrave Macmillan. (L)
• Murphy, H., Pierce, J. and Ruiz, J. (2016). What makes Queer oral history different. The Oral History Review, 43(1), 1-24.

March 14- Memory in the digital ecosystem

• Third project review is due today.
• Rachel Dixon will present her Spring 2021 Digital Memory class project: Blue Laws and Outlaws

Readings:

Read these three texts and annotate two of them with Hypothesis:

• Burkey, B. (2020). Repertoires of remembering: A conceptual approach for studying memory practices in the digital ecosystem. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 44(2), 178–197.
• Liebermann, Y. (2021). Born digital: The Black lives matter movement and memory after the digital turn. Memory Studies, 14(4), 713-732.
• Fuentes, M. (2019). #NiUnaMenos (# NotOneWomanLess): Hashtag performativity, memory, and direct action against gender violence in Argentina. In Altinay, M. J. Contreras, M. Hirsch, J. Howard, B. Karaca, & A. Solomon, Eds., Women mobilizing memory (pp.172-191). Columbia UP.

For further (optional) reading:

• Coromina, Ó., Padilla Molina, A. (2018). Reconstructing memory narratives on Facebook with digital methods. Culture & History Digital Journal 7(2).
• Twyman, M., Keegan, B., Shaw, (2017). Black Lives Matter in Wikipedia: Collaboration and collective memory around online social movements. Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (pp. 1400-1412). Association for Computing Machinery.

March 21- Project proposals

No readings assigned for next week. Instead:

• Prepare your project proposal and share it with me via Google Drive by March 20. Your proposal is a work-in-progress, but it should show deep thinking, good planning, and awareness of available resources.
• Here’s a short thesis about curating digital memory projects that might also help: Friedman, M. (2014). Preserving memory in the digital age. Curatorial practices of 9/11 digital archives. [Undergraduate thesis, Univ. of Puget Sound]
• Please complete these midterm evaluations (both are short!):
  • Your midterm self-evaluation (not anonymous)
  • Your midterm course evaluation (anonymous)

March 28- Transcultural, transnational, transmedia memory practices

Readings:

Read these three texts and annotate two of them with Hypothesis:

• Kansteiner, W. (2017). Transnational holocaust memory, digital culture and the end of reception studies. In T. Sindbæk Andersen & B. Törnquist-Plewa, The twentieth century in European memory. Transcultural mediation and Reception (pp. 305–343). Brill. (L)
• Kennedy, R. & Graefenstein, S. (2019). From the transnational to the intimate: Multidirectional memory, the holocaust and colonial violence in Australia and beyond. International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society 32, 403–422.
• Rappaccioli, E. Y. (2022). AMA y No Olvida. Collectivizing memory against impunity: Transmedia memory practices, modular visibility, and activist participatory design in Nicaragua. International Journal of Communication 16, 309-330.

April 4- Gender, Queer witnessing

Readings:

Read these three texts and annotate two of them with Hypothesis:

• Reading, A. (2016). Gender, memory and technologies. In Gender and memory in the globital age (pp. 19-36). Palgrave Macmillan.
• Chidgey, R. (2012). Hand-made memories: Remediating cultural memory in DIY feminist networks. In E. Zobl & R. Drüeke (Eds.), Feminist media: Participatory spaces, networks and cultural citizenship (pp. 87–97). Verlag. (L)
• Nieves, A. D. (2021). Digital Queer witnessing testimony, contested virtual heritage, and the apartheid archive in Soweto, Johannesburg.  In R. Risam & K. Bakers Joseph The Digital Black Atlantic. (Whole book available on Debates).

April 11– Spring recess

April 18- (Same reading from last week)

Read these three texts and annotate two of them with Hypothesis:

• Reading, A. (2016). Gender, memory and technologies. In Gender and memory in the globital age (pp. 19-36). Palgrave Macmillan.
• Chidgey, R. (2012). Hand-made memories: Remediating cultural memory in DIY feminist networks. In E. Zobl & R. Drüeke (Eds.), Feminist media: Participatory spaces, networks and cultural citizenship (pp. 87–97). Verlag. (L)
• Nieves, A. D. (2021). Digital Queer witnessing testimony, contested virtual heritage, and the apartheid archive in Soweto, Johannesburg.  In R. Risam & K. Bakers Joseph The Digital Black Atlantic. (Whole book available on Debates).

April 25- Intergenerational memory

Readings:

Read these three texts and annotate two of them with Hypothesis:

• Hirsch, M. (2008). The generation of postmemory. Poetics Today, 29(1), 103-128.
• Spencer, Z. & Perlow, O. (2018). Sassy mouths, unfettered spirits, and the neo-lynching of Korryn Gaines and Sandra Bland: Conceptualizing post traumatic slave master syndrome and the familiar “policing” of Black women’s resistance in twenty-first-century America. Feminism, race, transnationalism, 17(1), 163-183. [If interested, check the concept of “post traumatic slave syndrome,” by Joy DeGruy (5 min.) and Joy DeGruy’s website.]
• Martínez, E. (2013). The struggle for historical collective memory and epistemic creativity from below. Journal of Peripheral Cultural Production of the Luso-Hispanic World, 3(1), 37-57.

May 2- Memory and history

Readings:

Read these four texts and annotate two of them with Hypothesis:

• Confino, A. (2011). History and memory. In A. Schneider and D. Woolf (Eds.), The Oxford history of historical writing: Vol. 5. Historical writing since 1945 (pp. 36-51). Oxford UP. (L)
• Huyssen, A. (2000). Present Pasts: Media, Politics, Amnesia. Public Culture 12(1), pp. 21-38.
• Risam, R. (2019). Introduction. The postcolonial digital cultural record. New digital worlds. Postcolonial digital humanities in theory, praxis, and pedagogy. Northwestern UP (pp. 1-23). (L)

May 9-Trauma/Project presentations

Readings:

Read the following three texts and annotate two of them with Hypothesis:

• Kansteiner, W. & Weilnböck, H. (2008). Against the concept of cultural trauma. In Erll & A. Nünning, The invention of cultural memory: A short history of memory studies (pp. 229-240). Walter de Gruyter. (L)
• Recuber, T. (2012).  The prosumption of commemoration: Disasters, digital memory banks, and online collective memory. American Behavioral Scientist, 56(4), 531– 549.
• Sutherland, T. (2017). Making a killing: On race, ritual, and (re)membering in digital culture. Preservation, Digital Technology & Culture 46(1), 32-40.

Optional/Additional readings: Games and other ontologies, 

Readings:

Read the following four texts and annotate two of them with Hypothesis:

• Lucchesi, A. (2018). “Indians don’t make maps:” Indigenous cartographic traditions and innovations. American Indian Culture and Research Journal, 42(3), 11-26.
• Duarte, M. E. & Belarde-Lewis, M. (2015). Imagining: Creating spaces for indigenous ontologies. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 53 (5-6), 677-702.
• Brown, V. (2015). Mapping a slave revolt: Visualizing spatial history through the archives of slavery. Social Text 33(4)[125]), 134–141.
• Pötzsch, H. & Šisler, V. (2019). Playing cultural memory: Framing history in Call of Duty: Black Ops and Czechoslovakia 38–89: Assassination. Games and Culture, 14(1), 3-25.

What is left?

• Complete your course project by May 23 (please include the link in your self-evaluation), Here are some aspects I will look at when evaluating your project. 
• Final self-evaluation
• Final course evaluation (anonymous, short and optional)