Home | Business News | Browse by Publication | B | British Journal of Psychology

Seeking the middle ground in the ''memory wars''. (Essay Book Review).(several books reviewed)(Book Review)-

Article Excerpt
Recovered memories: Seeking the middle ground

Graham M. Davies & Tim Dalgleish (Eds.)

Chichester, UK: Wiley. 2001. Hardback, [pounds sterling]62.87 ($89.95). ISBN 0-471-491314.

Paper. [pounds sterling]22.50 ($45.00). ISBN 0471491322.

Trauma and memory

Linda M. Williams & Victoria L Banyard (Eds.)

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 1999. Hardback, [pounds sterling]45.00 ($79.95).

ISBN 0761907718. Paper, [pounds sterling]21.00 ($34.95). ISBN 0-761-90772-6.

Truth in memory

Steven J. Lynn & Kevin M. McConkey (Eds.)

New York Guilford Press. 1998. Hardback, [pounds sterling]35.95 ($50.00). ISBN 1-572-30345-X.

Recollections of trauma: Scientific evidence and clinical practice

J. Don Read & D. Stephen Lindsay (Eds.)

New York: Plenum. 1997. Hardback, [pounds sterling]140.95 ($197.00). ISBN 0-306-45618-4.

Recovered memories and false memories

Martin A. Conway (Ed.)

Oxford: Oxford University. 1997. Paper, [pounds sterling]16.95 ($29.95). ISBN 0-198-52386-6.

The recovered memory/false memory debate

Kathy Pezdek & William P. Banks (Eds.)

San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 1996. Hardback, [pounds sterling]39.95 ($59.95). ISBN 0-125-52975-9.

The 'memory wars'

In the last decade, psychologists have become involved in one of their most contentious debates to date--contentious enough that Pezdek and Banks refer to it as close to a 'religious war' (Pezdek & Banks, 1996, p. xii). (1) They are not far wrong. The recovered memory debate has divided professional organizations resulting in a substantial loss of membership. Some of the major organizations have been unable to reach a consensus beyond the most basic of guidelines concerning professional practice (Royal College of Psychiatry; see Brandon et al., 1997; American Psychological Association; see Alpert et at., 1996). In fact, the British Psychological Society was the only professional body to produce a report and guidelines that met with the approval of all the members of their working party (Andrews et at., 1995), if not all members of the society (see Weiskrantz, 1995).

The 'memory wars' have arisen from two related sets of events. (2) Firstly, there has been a growing concern about the sexual abuse of children. This came to a head with claims of widespread abuse at the MeMartin preschool in the USA (see Pendergrast, 1996 (3); see also Douglas-Brown, Goldstein, & Bjorklund, 2000) and concern about the abuse of children in care homes in the UK (see La Fontaine, 1998; Webster, 1998). As Garven, Wood, Malpass, and Shaw (1998) argue, some of the alleged events in the McMartin case were so bizarre (involving satanic and ritualistic elements) that the reports could only have arisen from the overzealousness of child protection agencies, leading to the improper questioning of witnesses.

The second set of events that can be said to have sparked the controversy has been the growing number of adults who have come to report that their own current problems were due to repressed memories' of childhood sexual abuse. The two most problematic aspects of these cases were firstly the absence of independent corroboration of such abuse and, secondly, that these claims typically arose after a lengthy period of so-called 'recovered memory therapy'. Recovered memory therapy is a blanket term covering any therapeutic treatment in which the prime goal is to uncover repressed, dissociated, or otherwise unavailable 'memories' of trauma, in order to resolve present-day psychological ailments (Lindsay & Read, 1994). Partly because of the growing numbers of individuals claiming to have 'recovered memories', the statutes of limitations, previously barring such cases from being tried in court, were lifted in many states in America. These changes enabled individuals to sue, or bring criminal charges against, their pa rents (or other alleged abusers) based, more often than not, solely on 'memories' that were allegedly 'recovered' during such therapy (Underwager & Wakefield, 1998). The problem with allowing such testimony, as Ofshe and Watters (1994) argue, was that some of these 'memories' might, in fact, be iatrogenic productions of the therapeutic process itself (hence the term 'false memories').

Parents who felt that they had been falsely accused on the basis of such 'recovered memories' formed action groups, the False Memory Syndrome Foundation (FMSF) in North America (founded in 1991), and the British False Memory Society (formerly Adult Children Accusing Parents founded in 1992) in the UK (see Gudjonsson, 1997a). In response to the widening of the problem, several other organizations have now been established, for example FACT (Falsely Accused Carers and Teachers), AAFAA (Action Against False Allegations of Abuse) and VOCAL (Victims of Child Abuse Laws). Some of these societies established scientific advisory boards, consisting of academics, psychiatrists and clinicians, which seemed to fuel the fire for further controversy: Some members of these boards, through their association with these societies, have also been subject to personal attacks. For example, de Mause (1994, p. 505) has claimed that "all members of the FMSF are paedophiles or abusers themselves".

On the other side of the debate are those who believe that the search for previously unavailable 'memories' of childhood trauma is justified because such 'recovered memories' can indeed be historically accurate. They argue that to suggest that these claims might be false represents just another way for society to deny the reality of childhood sexual abuse (for examples, see Cameron, 1996; Freyd, 1998; Lindsay, 1996; Salter, 1998). Proponents of this view also suffer for their beliefs, and a number of the key figures have been subjected to personal attack (see Calof, 1998). A quick glance at Internet-based discussion groups on this topic reveals a new vocabulary that is emerging (or re-emerging) in this debate. One finds references to 'feminazis' [feminists], 'the-rapist' [therapist], 'Freud-bashing'-even the term 'child saver' is used in a derogatory fashion.

Thus the 'memory wars' are not simply being fought by those individuals who are most obviously involved (i.e. the alleged victims and the alleged perpetrators). As a result of such cases being brought to criminal and civil courts, experts in 'memory' (both academic and clinical) are being asked to testily. However, given the very serious and sensitive nature of the claims that are made, this is far from a dry academic issue--the stakes are too high.

On the one hand are clinicians who claim that certain traumatic experiences are permanently stored in one form or another, that it is possible to revive 'memories' of these long-forgotten events and that such 'memories' are generally correct. If the clinicians are wrong then families can be torn apart, individuals falsely branded as paedophiles and, sometimes, wrongly incarcerated (see Pendergrast, 1996) on the basis of such 'recovered memories'. On the other hand are academics who claim that the majority of 'recovered memories' cases are the result of inappropriate and highly suggestive therapeutic techniques (see also Hyman, 2000). Yet the consequences of that claim being wrong are equally as tragic, not only in individual cases, but also on a wider level. As Conway (1997b) states, one serious concern is that genuine victims of childhood sexual assault will be less willing to come forward, and their testimony regarded as less credible by therapeutic and legal systems now familiar with the term 'false memory syndrome' (see also Shuman, 1997, p.498).

Not surprisingly, given the sensitivity of the topic and the strength of feeling concerning the injustice of either being falsely accused, or falsely disbelieved, feelings run high. Yet the fact is that everyone involved in the debate agrees that not only is the sexual abuse of children abhorrent, but furthermore, it is far more prevalent than society has liked to admit. The reason that the war still rages, despite this unanimity, is that it seems impossible to reach a consensus on the phenomena at the heart of this debate: the scientific status of these 'recovered memories'. As Pezdek and Banks (1996a, p. xii) put it, "the middle ground here is like a tightrope".

The six books reviewed here are just a small sample of many that have attempted to speak on this debate. Earlier books on the subject could be said to have their feet planted fairly firmly in one camp or another, taking frankly partisan stances toward recovered memories (e.g. Ofshe & Watters, 1994; Whitfield, 1995). The six books under review have been chosen primarily because they are recent edited volumes with chapters written by many of the main experts and, as such, cover many of the pertinent issues surrounding this debate from a wide variety of perspectives. In addition, they all claim to represent the current state of knowledge regarding recovered/false memories' (although only Read & Lindsay's, 1997, book avoids the use of 'memory' in the title). Nevertheless there is still a fundamental contrast between the focus of the books, which is a reflection of the wider division. This wider division can be summarized as a general disagreement over the fundamental nature of memory. Is 'memory' primarily reprod uctive, and therefore generally accurate, or is it reconstructive and, at...