History, Memory, and the Visual Politics of Memorials

HISTORY AND MEMORY «
MEMORY AND SPACE «
MEMORY SITES «
VIETNAM VETERANS MEMORIAL «
VISUAL RHETORIC AND NATIONALISM «
INDIVIDUAL AND PUBLIC MEMORY «
DESTRUCTION «
VICTIMS OF COMMUNISM MEMORIAL «

HISTORY AND MEMORY

History stands in contrast to real memory, which is social and inviolable; also, memory is present and constantly evolving where history is reconstructed and partial (Nora 1989:8).

History, to an extent, fixes events in time. It is written – memorialized – or it is cast in words or stone, and it therefore becomes less flexible. Memory exists more conceptually; since collective memory is made up of so many differing individual memories, it is rendered living and dynamic.

Academic Basu argues that memory and history exist in the same space (Basu 2007). Even if they are different in nature, histories and memories are mounted upon one another. History creates a fictional space (Boyer 1996). It is narrative rather than fact. Although it may draw on reality and lived experience it is an amalgamation that also includes myth, memory, and invention (Samuel 1994). As Samuel says, ‘history has always been a hybrid form of knowledge’ (Samuel 1994:443).

The fictional space created by history is realized in the public arena, particularly in monuments and memorials, which physically record the composite history in social environments.

MEMORY AND SPACE

History may build a more literal space as well. In his influential work on collective memory, Halbwachs highlights the sensory importance of space and its influence on shared memory. In many ways, things are embodied spatially. He discusses, for instance, the link between habit and the stones of the city. Because they are so enduring, our built environments provide constancy that influences social behaviour. Halbwachs suggests that people may be less shaken by grave national events than a dramatic alteration of their structural environs (Halbwachs 1980).

As Lefebvre notes, ‘time is inseparable from space’ (Lefebvre 1974:218) History is created and navigated through an understanding of space and the way in which communities exist and move within it. Halbwachs maintains that ‘we can understand how we recapture the past only by understanding how it is, in effect, preserved by our physical surroundings’ (Halbwachs 1980:140). This, in effect, is why monuments and memorials are important to think about in studies of collective memory. The main goal behind a structure such as this is to preserve. As a group, what is commonly preserved and made with the intention of permanency becomes a part of memory and history that is most solid and easily retrievable.

MEMORY SITES

As Lefebvre notes, monumental works operating within politics and society will gravitate toward a sense of totality (Lefebvre 1974). The negative aspects of a war – fear and violence – can be written over in lieu of a more calm remembrance of sacrifice, death, and a greater cause. In a discussion of a few British monuments that are anti-individualistic in nature, Gough and Morgan point out that this can be a sincere attempt to be inclusive. To emphasize the nation and the common man over the individual and their acts can be both unifying and equalizing (Gough and Morgan 2004). Besides that, a nation is composed of many diverse voices that of course cannot all be accommodated by a single structure. What is interesting, then, is the way a single edifice can speak for a nation, how it is accommodated, and when it is challenged.

War memorials provide continuity; they are a symbol of the past made durable. Therefore, through the intention of abiding, they are based in the future as well as the past. Monuments for long past wars may be prime examples of the evolution of a public monument which may be represented by stages. It is first created and constructed with ceremony, it is then routinized, and finally, depending on the persistence of visitors and their renewal of the ceremony, the site may transform, fade, or disappear (Gough and Morgan 2004). It seems that the construction of replicas is an often forged in the interest of renewing the original commemoration. It is has the potential of serving as reminder, particularly if the original monument begins to fade from memory.

VIETNAM VETERANS MEMORIAL

The Vietnam Veterans Memorial is an excellent example of the potency of visual imagery in such a monument. The black granite that makes up the memorial not only sets it apart from and in contrast to the other white marble monuments near it such as the Lincoln and Jefferson memorials, but also creates a distinct mood for it (Rowlands 1999). It lends the memorial a more grievous tone and reflects the face of the viewer in it, who cannot pass by as mere spectator if they which to read it but must get close to see the engravings (Rowlands 1999). Another noticeable break from tradition is the fact that the memorial is sunk into the ground as a sort of gash or wound in the earth which, through its need to heal, may jolt the viewer whilst signifying a mournful tone of remembrance (Rowlands 1999).

The memorial was disliked by some for looking more like a dismal mass grave than a heroic eulogy that also contained hints of patriotism and glory (Bodnar 1992). The latter wishes did not triumph but were accommodated. To the original more somber design was added an American flag, a ‘heroic statue’ of three soldiers from the Vietnamese conflict, and the inscription ‘God Bless America’ on the monument itself; (Bodnar 1992:6). Desires of nationalism were thus made to balance with a more collective expression of sorrow as made manifest in the visual details of the memorial’s design. It was a dispute not only over how to write the history of those lives that were lost, but also how to interpret it as individuals, as families, and as a nation. The expression of the emotions tied to it was important for many people who all wanted fidelity from its visual and material representation.

VISUAL RHETORIC AND NATIONALISM

Because monuments and memorials are works that exist in space it is the texture rather than text that we are concerned with (Lefebvre 1974). It can be explained and discussed in language but it is not primarily in language or discourse that the structure expresses itself (or the views and histories of its creators). Monuments often use widely recognizable symbols to convey specific ideals. They may also employ visual metonymy and referencing to evoke other images that are not present.

Monuments and memorials are tied to places; they fill a physical expanse with historical memory and patriotic ideals. These kinds of spaces that are designed to be symbolic situate rhetorical significance (Boyer 1996). Boyer argues that they may also provide a place for the kinds of political and social structures that a municipality wishes to inculcate among its people’ (Boyer 1996:343). They ‘invite audiences to remember certain historical events and persons (and forget others), to remember them in specific ways, and to memorialize them in particular forms’ (Olson, Finnegan, and Hope 2008:10).

The potency of symbols of nationalism and their ubiquity are thoroughly examined in Billig’s Banal Nationalism. Firstly, Billig does an excellent job of reminding us that everyday acts of nationalism are oft ignored by the social sciences as well as their engraving upon society through the forgetting of said acts. He describes banal nationalism as consisting of ‘ideological habits’ that imply the nation-state in the quotidian. These symbols, the waved flag as well as the limp, un-waved flag, serve as reminders of a ‘national identity’, a concept which is unnatural but reinforced all the time by imagining a distinction between one’s nation and ‘others’ (Billig 1995). They enter into the interpretation of a country that groups must undertake in visualizing an identity. They also create a space that allows for nationalistic rhetoric that is somehow less obtrusive and which aids in the reproduction of the nation (Billig 1995). Banal nationalism fades into the background precisely because it is so common; however its visuality and embedded nature can spark memory sensorily. Because these symbols may become so engrained and familiar, the sight of one can stir memory and emotion in powerful ways. The monument or memorial is a strong symbol and celebrated with ritual, but can also feign to fade into the background, particularly as a part of the physical surroundings.

INDIVIDUAL AND PUBLIC MEMORY

It is important to note who is constructing memory and who therefore has control over it. In the case of collective memory, it is intentionally spoken for through mediums such as historical archives, museums, and national memorials. Memorials require land and money, and those who provide or own it will likely have a greater stake. As Morgan notes, those who control the landscape may control how deliberations are dictated because they have jurisdiction over the space in which the memory site resides (Morgan 2000). This is not to imply, however, that others are powerless in creating and holding part of the collective memory. In fact, national monuments and spaces of the sort may often inspire resistance from individuals (Morgan 2000).

Memorials have become sites for statements of peace as well as dissent (Inglis 1992). Thus society as a whole, groups of people, and individuals may all have a say in what a memorial means. Much of the observance surrounding memorials has more to do with their availability just as their endurance has to do with their maintenance (King 1999). For all the talk of the durability of a monument, it does still rely on some sort of public upkeep. For example, King says of 1920s and 30s commemorations that they were treated with reverence by many people not because they accommodated a shared sensibility but because of the institutional and public organization around them that maintained them (King 1999). This becomes clear too when seeing how easily and commonly a memorial may be vandalized, especially when caught up in political conflict. Changing the face of a memorial through mutilation is jarring precisely because the familiar image is interrupted.

A national memorial displaying familiar national emblems implicates and includes the members that are part of that nation. Thus, monumental space opens up a dialogue between public and private speech, between the individual and society. It holds an image of the individual’s ‘social visage’ acting as a communal rather than personal reflection (Lefebvre 1974:220). It represents a whole; therefore, it commands consensus and unanimity. The individual may interact with the space, discuss it, and form opinions about it but regardless of that opinion, they will also be partially represented by it as a member of the community for which it stands. It celebrates a nation and a group dynamic but in its very nature must blur individual ideals and histories together. As Lefebvre adds, ‘the element of repression in it and the element of exaltation could scarcely be disentangled’ (Lefebvre 1974:220).

DESTRUCTION

When objects are destroyed in purposeful and symbolic ways, the memory of the object or its importance persists in the absence of the object (Rowlands 1993). Usually memory is layered and may refer to multiple sorts of ‘pasts’. In the case of a destroyed object, it is then mostly remembered for a purpose and loses some ability to allude to something outside of that.

Intentional destruction of an object can also serve as a physical statement of resistance. In the United States, the American flag has become an extremely strong icon for the nation. While people can use the flag as a reinforcement of the strength of the country in its display – for example, after the attacks on the nation on September 11th – but it can also be assaulted in dissent as when students opposing the Gulf War burned the flag in the 1990’s (Kaplan 2003). The power of images can be so strong and widespread that it inspires fear. This is believed to be a reason that people attempt to destroy images and symbols; to leave them intact is to acknowledge their ‘claim to power’ (Morgan 2003).

VICTIMS OF COMMUNISM MEMORIAL

The original Goddess of Democracy statue was erected by students during the Tiananmen Square protests in Beijing in 1989. It was torn down after several days, but has been replicated and appropriated in many different places. One of the most recently established of these reproductions was central to the Victims of Communism Memorial dedicated a few years ago in Washington D.C. The memorial was created by a private foundation which was established by an act of Congress for this purpose (Williams 2008).

The Tiananmen protesters resonated with people in the United States because some of their actions evoked American historical memory and because they could identify with them (Lee and Yang 1995; Li, Li, and Mark 1991). Chinese protesters used song and slogan from the 1960’s civil rights movement in the U.S. and exuded western symbolism and an atmosphere that reminded reporters of Woodstock (Lee and Yang 1995). The associated press often linked events to American ideals, stressed the influence of the U.S. and democracy, and even likened the Goddess of Democracy as a ‘sister’ to the Statue of Liberty (Lee and Yang 1995:13). U.S. citizens donated money, wrote letters of support and became involved politically; New York proclaimed its own Tiananmen Square in support in ratification of the cause and a Goddess of Democracy reproduction was put up in Los Angeles (Li, Li, and Mark 1991: 273). The Goddess of Democracy, thus, was a symbol that the United States recognized and utilized in a public way.

It is apparent that in the year directly after the Tiananmen protests, the issue and the statue, as one of the icons of the struggle in China, were present in the public consciousness at least in a few cities. The Los Angeles Times newspaper tracked the tension surrounding their own replica (of the Tiananmen statue) that was erected, vandalized, and rededicated (Lee 1989; Citron 1989; Torres 1990).

When the Victims of Communism Memorial was unveiled, it was linked through discourse to the present and future just as much as it was to the past. George W. Bush accepted it during his presidency on behalf of the people of the United States on the anniversary of Reagan’s ‘tear down the wall’ speech (The White House, Office of the Press Secretary 2007). The two inscriptions on either sides of the statue read ‘To the more than one hundred million victims of communism and to those who love liberty’ and ‘To the freedom and independence of all captive nations and peoples’ (Poremski 2007).

In his dedication speech, President Bush acknowledged the many different groups who constituted ‘victims of communism’ and their sacrifices. He stressed the importance of remembering these lessons because the evils behind them still exist – for example, in the terrorism behind the September 11th attacks in the United States (The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, 2007). By emphasizing the need to think of these things now and in light of present events, he linked the memorial to current threats and introduced the memorial not only as a remembrance but also as an active reminder of prevailing dangers. The inscriptions of the statue also connect the past victims to those that exist now as well as to a hope for their future freedom.

Bush notes in his speech that although the memorial designers could have chosen an image of oppression, they instead selected ’an image of hope -- a woman holding a lamp of liberty. She reminds us of the victims of Communism, and also of the power that overcame Communism’ (The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, 2007).

As Rowlands noted, the original is always evoked in the replica (Rowlands 1993). This statue is particularly forceful because of its visual layering. The fact that the original statue resembled the Statue of Liberty is trapped in memory of the protests and the connection between the power of the United States, the power of democracy, and the strength of Tiananmen protesters is thus forged. The Victims of Communism Memorial is able to visually invoke its own ideals and successes through those of the other.