Our Memorials are Too Political
The tragedies of the past compel us to commemorate the lives of those who suffered during conflict while also seeking to preserve collective memory and cultural heritage. Such desires are often satiated through the building of memorials, in a process that is known as memorialisation. This phenomenon attempts to promote social recovery, and tries to restore a sense of order and closure for communities and individuals. In the contemporary context, memorialisation becomes instrumental in serving transitional justice and encouraging reconciliation. Noting that no memorials are created in a political vacuum, the phenomenon of memorialisation becomes a weapon that governments wield so often to become the torchbearers of healing and resolution, thus politicising the very essence of memorialisation.
The nature of such politicisation is becoming increasingly prevalent in today’s society. Take for example George Bush’s efforts at memorialisation following the September 11 attacks. His memorial service began with the enormous lights display surrounding the Statue of Liberty on the anniversary of September 11, followed by his speech on American freedom and nationalism in front of the massively lit statue. The dense media coverage of the President’s commemoration of the tragedy of September 11 put him in the spotlight where he, dressed up in a sweet slick suit, revelled in the vanity of looking like a “million bucks” (as some call it), because he understands that putting such production and depth into a picture makes him, a potential candidate for the next elections, look better. Through this, the President’s political agendas are placed parallel to the memory of victims, elucidating the apparent politicisation of memorialisation.
Such is only one instance amongst many that go beyond the American borders. Oftentimes governments and administrations use this opportunity not just to unite their people by a shared tragic experience, but also carving the future of such a collective experience through spectacularised politics. The politics of memory isn’t an unfamiliar concept to politicians who often use this to remake memory in order to serve their political agendas. The highlighting of traumatic events and capitalising on shared grief often shape public discourse, swinging it largely in favor of those who highlight it in the first place. Moreover, such gross politicisation of memory in such a context takes away all forms of agency from those affected by the tragedy in determining how they want their loved ones to be remembered. Rather, the memories of those who lost their lives are simply rendered in a dirty political agenda of a politician who probably has no intention of bringing structural or political changes that could potentially avoid such a tragedy in the first place. The use of repetition, through the tricks of annual elaborate commemorative events, adds to the memory of such a collective tragedy a link to these political figures and their political campaigns.
While the obvious nature of such politicisation is abhorrent at the first glance, it becomes even more problematic once we divulge deeper into this practice. Once politicians start gaining agency over the building of a memorial, for instance, or removal of one thereof, they also gain control of the narrative that surrounds that memorial. What follows is manipulation of history, even erasure of history at times, leading to a loss of historical understanding. Although memorials don’t appear to be extremely significant in constructing a historical narrative, through the virtue of their large presence in the public sphere which transcends not only into pop culture but also literature and curricula, memorials do indeed become significantly influential in dictating historical understanding. For example, politicians may use certain aspects of historical events or figures to garner support for their policies while concealing the rest of the aspects of their legacy that don't fit their agenda, leading to a dangerous selective interpretation of history. Hence, memorials, once they become politically charged, can be divisive and/or polarizing, making such memorials a flashpoint for political debate and conflict. Through this, memorials lose their original purpose – a means for honoring the past and those affected by it – and end up becoming part of the larger dirty political scheme that continues to embroil our society.
To overcome the challenges posed by the politicisation of memorials, it is crucial to approach memorialisation in a way that is transparent, inclusive, and respectful. This means considering diverse perspectives and acknowledging the complexity and nuances of historical events and figures. Additionally, it involves avoiding the use of memorials as a tool to advance political agendas and ensuring that the process of memorialisation is open to public scrutiny and discussion.
Our understanding of the past and present is heavily influenced by the stories we tell and the narratives we choose to preserve. By acknowledging the potential impact of the politicisation of memorials, we can take steps to ensure that the process of memorialisation serves its intended purpose: to preserve our shared history, honor the experiences of those who came before us, and promote a more just and equitable future.
Illustration: Bethany Morton