Memory as power: who is to decide?

The transactional aspects of human memory remain enigmatic: memory disputes carry intense affective charge; memory's effects vary with how content is framed or slanted by one's perspective; memory is vulnerable to suggestive influence; and these processes are seen at all levels of social scale from simple dyads to whole societies. These observations suggest that memory serves important functions in mediating interpersonal relationships. As hypotheses for further study, I propose that (1) memory mediates interpersonal power dynamics; (2) social legitimization countermands memory's truth value when the two conflict; (3) suggestibility protects otherwise disadvantaged individuals by rendering them more adaptable to dominant others' belief systems; and (4) mutual suggestion ties together all levels of scale within a given society. All of these hypotheses are discussed within a context of recent controversies surrounding hypnotically refreshed eyewitness testimony and adult delayed traumatic recall, which are worked out at the intersection of mental health and legal practice with a pivotal role given to the expert witness. The presumption of innocence dominates current trends in these areas. Cases that appear to violate this presumption, such as Pennsylvania v. Crawford (718 A.2d (Pa. 1998)), affirm another fundamental principle of democracy: that the ultimate issue of witness credibility is to be decided not by an expert, but by the citizenry itself-as represented in the jury.