It is a regular discussion that I had with Laurene and I cannot see why she seldom disagreed with the idea that each country is unique in their owns different ways. Or perhaps I did not see what she was trying to say. Are we talking on the same thing or we both agree and disagree on different topic? I argued that the uniqueness does exist through the connection between people with object, places, space, weather, etc. Somehow there is some kind of emotional connection happen in between that makes one felt special and unique of the object, places or space. One who visited Paris will said that no other place like Paris because of the cuisine, Eiffel tower, language etc. Paris is unique in some ways comparing to other city. Others might disagree with it and said that Sydney is unique in one eyes because of the Sydney harbour, food, weather and people. Looking at both with experiencing each places, one could not said that it’s unique. It relates with emotion and the kind of experience that one got through with others, objects and places.

But what Laurene might means when she said that there is no uniqueness in identity in my research, she might be referring to the advertisements and woman’s magazine cover I had from Malaysia. Indeed looking at the printed artefact doesn’t demonstrate the idea of uniqueness. There no such thing as uniqueness if there is no experience connected to it. Is that what Laurene mean? And no, I’m not trying to defend my personal feeling here but what I think about it in relation to my research.

In relation to the notion of uniqueness…

Cultural Memory is taken from Material Culture edited book by five authors (Tilley, Keane, Kuchler, Rolands and Spyer). Published by SAGE publication in 2006 London.

Paul Connerton wrote a concise paper on cultural memory, which I found deeply interesting and useful in informing me with deeper understanding about cultural memory. This topic relates closely around the idea of uniqueness that I was discussing with Laurene lately in relation to my research.

Vanished people and object through time and its relation to cultural memory.

Contemporary culture as mentioned by Paul Connerton (2006:pp.316) relates to the retribution of justice and public apology such as in United State and France, where there has been a plethora of apologies for past actions by politicians and Church leaders. He stated that [the cumulative effect of all these public proceedings is that the process of how people are made to vanish has become a distinctive feature of the contemporary conception of what constitutes cultural memory].

Concerning that people are not the only things to vanish through time makes others who left attached to what had been past through generations, most of these are the material culture of the former lives. As Connerton point out in his article, “[b]etween Elizabeth and Victorian times, for example, goods once valued for evidence of durability were replaced by goods valued for disposability. In counter point to this, the strategy of cultural salvage, no less than that of retributive justice, now belongs to the memory boom]. It is become increasingly important and attached to people that this is what is thought as cultural patrimony. Therefore museum are build everywhere for collecting the artefacts that are related to people’s memory of the past. In Malaysia, there are more that 5 new museums build focussing on different areas such as war museum, ethnic museum, indigenous museum to remind peoples about the past and history. Connerson responded with stating that [the number of museums multiplies, especially museums of local identity, of everyday life and of working practices]. 

To be continue….

Laurene commented:

I can’t find a space to comment so I will do it here – what I mean is that there might be a belief in uniqueness but what you have discovered is that it is a belief, not quite a solid as you though it was. We might even say it is rubbery – what you think is unique for you, you then find out is unique for others. In this case there is no ‘one’ uniqueness and this is a bit problematic because unique usually implies ‘one’ not many.

Hmmm….

Laurene 

Nurul responded: