Biology Discourse Community Essay
This essay uses research from both experimental studies and from discursive psychology to evaluate whether memory is both a biological and a social process and provides evidence to that effect. Within psychology, two distinct traditions take memory as their object of concern: the cognitive experimental approach (biological) and the Discursive psychological approach (Social). The Cognitivebiological approach studies the structure of the brain and how remembering and forgetting take place (Kaye and Tree, 2016). The research uses single case studies and laboratory-based memory tests. The Discursive approach treats memory and remembering as a social activity accomplished through interactions and uses individual and group interviews and also established data sources in their research (Kaye and Tree, 2016). Cognitive experimental and discursive approaches are distinct from each other concerning their fundamental ontology, styles of theorizing, methodological preferences, and modes of application and they could be considered to have little compatibility (Davies and Horton-Salway, 2016). However, both cognitive and discursive psychologists concern themselves with the functional significance of memory which is the role of the past in creating and maintaining the current self and identity (Kaye and Tree, 2016). The study of memories across both disciplines is vast and therefore this essay focuses on episodic and autobiographical memory.
In cognitive psychology, remembering is treated as an individual process for recording, retrieving, and configuring information; everyday actions are regarded as surface behaviors caused by underlying mental and neurological processes (Kaye and Tree, 2016). Initial research into memory was carried out by cognitive psychologists and focussed on biological processes. Episodic memory is a type of long-term memory that involves conscious recollection of previous experiences together with their context in terms of time, place, and associated emotions and is linked to the hippocampus in the medial temporal lobe (Kaye and Tree, 2016).
Single-subject research has been key to the progress of the research into the biological process of memory (Kaye and Tree, 2016). Using the methods of cognitive neuropsychology researchers study brain-damaged patients to understand how particular cognitive processes work (Kaye and Tree, 2016). Henry Molaison experienced surgery which left him with no ability to store or retrieve new experiences. He could remember events that occurred before his surgery but was unable to form new memories (Lichterman, 2009). The research into Molaison’s condition led to the understanding that complex functions such as learning and memory are tied to discrete regions of the brain (Lichterman, 2009). Scoville and Milner (2000) studied Molaison and 9 other patients who had undergone similar surgery and concluded that the hippocampus, located in the medial temporal lobe was necessary for normal memory. Subsequent research into Molaison identified that adjacent regions transform perceptions and awareness into memories. However, for Molaison, the transformation could not take place. Molaison experienced all aspects of his daily life as if they were taking place for the first time (Lichterman, 2009). Milner (2000) cited in Lichterman (2009) claimed that the hippocampus is responsible for converting immediate memories into long-term memories and as Molaison could still remember his early life the storage and retrieval of memory must occur outside of the hippocampus. However, his intellect, personality, and perception were intact and he was able to acquire new motor skills even though he could never recall performing the tasks before (Lichterman, 2009). Mollison also had preserved performance on semantic memory and therefore it was argued that medial temporal lobe damage had little impact on linguistic ability and he was also able to acquire new vocabulary relating to past experiences (Lichterman, 2009). Evidence from patients who have suffered brain damage leading to severely impaired episodic memory has been fundamental in understanding the importance of specific neural regions, for example, that the hippocampus in the medial temporal lobe is responsible for episodic memory (Kaye and Tree, 2016). Medial temporal lobe lesions cause temporally graded retrograde amnesia, suggesting a time-limited role of the hippocampus in memory retrieval (Kaye and Tree, 2016). This forms the basis of the standard model of system-level consolidation which proposes that the hippocampus is part of the retrieval system for recent memories but that memories are gradually transferred to the neocortical circuits for long-term storage (Tackashima et al, 2009). Therefore, long-term memories can be retrieved independently of the hippocampus (Tackashima et al, 2009). This was tested in Tackashima et al’s 2009 study where regional brain activity and connectivity during retrieval with functional magnetic resonance imaging. Participants were provided with images and asked to recall them with two separate delays 15 minutes and 24 hours including a whole night of sleep. The outcome of this experiment was that memory traces of the locations associated with specific faces were linked through the hippocampus for the retrieval of recently learned images, but with consolidation from the neo-cortical network (Tackashima et al, 2009).
Edwards (1997) cited in Billig (2010) suggested that the cognitive approach ‘reduces all of psychological life, including discourse and social interaction to the workings of cognitive or computational mental processes’. In contrast to this, Discursive Psychologists claim that remembering is not an act performed in a laboratory as part of a test of the accuracy of recall but instead is something we do as part of our talk with other people (Davies and Horton-Salway, 2016). Discursive psychologists are not primarily concerned with whether the information being presented accurately represents the past event (Davies and Horton-Salway (2016). So, whilst the Cognitive experiment approach focuses on the biological functioning of the brain and where storage and retrieval of memories take place, the discursive begins with the assumption that the telling of memory involves the construction of a selected version of something that happened in the past (Davies and Horton-Salway, 2016). The analytical focus is on how specific versions of memories are produced i.e. how events are described and what interactional business participants accomplish by constructing descriptors in one way rather than another (Davies and Horton-Salway, 2016). Edwards and Potter (1992) argued that if a cognitive process such as memory is studied in the real-world setting within which it is occasioned the central focus needs to be on the conversational pragmatic through which the psychological act is accomplished.
Pillemer (1998) states that the act of recounting a detailed personal memory to others communicates meaning that transcends the surface content of the particular recollection and this specialized form of communication appears to be rule-based. Pillemer claimed that the act of talking about memory and hearing the memories performs functions beyond the mere transmission of information (Pillemer, 1998). Edwards and Potter (1992) argue that what gets reported owes more to social and interactional norms rather than any memory of events being reported. Pillemer (1998) suggests that people’s narrative styles are more likely to reflect cultural conventions than underlying memory organization. Pillemer also argues that the production of details adds authenticity to memory and that the production of vivid recollections adds emotional intimacy and immediacy; recounting of memories may be perceived as a sign of the speaker’s openness, thus encouraging others to reciprocate and strengthen interpersonal bonds (Pillemer, 1998). Additionally, Pillemer (1998) suggests that memories are constituted in private and public negotiations between potentially rival claimants as to what the past has been.
In researching memory, Discursive Psychologists bracket out the question of whether the description of memory is real and focus on the discourse and the constructed reality; the analysis which takes place is on what is going on in the talk and the social context it takes place in (Davies and Horton-Salway, 2016). Discursive Psychology also brackets out how a situation is experienced and instead focuses on the form and content of the discourse, the relationship to the broader societal context, and what is achieved by this way of doing it (Davies and Horton-Salway, 2016). Therefore, Discursive psychologists unpick the discourse and explore the implications of it, i.e. why is it told in this way rather than in other ways. An example of such a study is Locke and Edwards’s (2001) study on President Clinton’s descriptions of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky which used video recordings of the Grand Jury testimony. In this study, motives, thoughts, memories, and the events to which they are attached are studied for how they are invoked; in the testimony, Clinton uses the phrases ‘remember’ recall, and forget as coins of verbal exchange that have a public discursive use in managing accountability (Coulter,1990 cited in Locke and Edwards, 2001). The testimony provided is not simply looking at recall in the sense of memory retrieval but at memory as a social psychological phenomenon; Clinton uses remembering as a discursive resource to manage a legal situation to his advantage (Locke and Edwards, 2001). The discursive approach does not question whether memory is accurate but it questions the assumption that one version of the past can be settled on as the correct version of events (Edwards