Monuments and Reconciliation
In this presentation, Visualising Peace student Tao Yazaki discusses some of the research she has been doing on monuments and reconciliation in the wake of conflict. Via a series of international case studies, she considers different trends in public and private memorialisation, the formation (or challenging) of collective memory through monuments, tensions between justice-seeking and stability (or a perpetrator’s peace) in memorial practices, and intergenerational remembering. Below the video, you can find a summary of the publications she discusses. These are also available in our Visualising Peace Library.
Cho, Hyunjung. “Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park and the Making of Japanese Postwar Architecture” Journal of Architectural Education 66, no. 1 (September 28, 2012): 72–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/10464883.2012.720915
In this article, Cho examines the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park through the architect’s motivations and background, the wider context of Japanese architecture, and the legacy of the Memorial Park. Cho argues the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park was representative of a wider shift in Japanese post-war architecture. I found this article particularly interesting as it gives an insight into the wide scope of motivations and implications of monument building.
Cho first highlights the personal context of the architect, Tange, and his own convictions and past projects that centered ideas of Japanese nationalism and superiority before the end of the World War Two. This provides an added dimension with which to view Tange’s post war work as he reformulates Japan’s post war identity, specifically looking at which aspects he draws on and which aspects he discards. Another dimension Cho points to is the debate surrounding how to memorialise ‘peace’ in Hiroshima and the different purposes behind the monument. For example, Tange’s proposal outlined the monument as a hopeful and active one of world peace, looking forward, while others criticised this ‘starting over’ narrative as one that involves amnesia of the wartime traumas of Japan’s colonies. The article outlines how these aspects are represented through specific compositional elements of the monument. A further note Cho adds is the motivations that influence the style of the monument. For example, Tange adopts a modernist style, which is significant as modernism was associated with being anti-Japanese during war times due to its connotations of Western influence. Another way the monument attempts to balance perspectives is by incorporating the imperial Yayoi period with the more naturalistic and pastoral style of pre-imperial Jōmon period Japan. Cho concludes with a reflection on the monument’s legacy – the inventing of the possibility of Japanese tradition and culture that is unencumbered by the imperialist past and has a space in the modern.
Last, Murray. “Reconciliation and Memory in Postwar Nigeria.” In Violence and Subjectivity, edited by Veena Das, Arthur Kleinman, Mamphela Ramphele and Pamela Reynolds, 315-332. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001. https://doi-org.ezproxy.st-andrews.ac.uk/10.1525/9780520921825-015
This chapter, from the wider collection of essays titled Violence and Subjectivity, provides a detailed analysis of the processes of reconciliation and their implications following the Nigerian civil war. The government’s reconciliation policies meant ‘hurts’ were moved from the public to the private memory where a sense of ambivalence, anger and resentment were left unresolved. Last explores the process of reconciliation in the private memory. He prefaces his argument with a detailed summary of the conflict including details of the losses and the human aftermath. Last’s key argument lies in what he considers obstacles to reconciliation. He differentiates between watchers of violence, who are traumatized and feel ineffective from afar, and bystanders, whose act of non-intervention is an active act of dissent. He argues reconciliation needs to be aimed at watchers of violence for the hurt to be resolved. Lastly, he outlines the cultural understandings of responsibility and punishment, highlighting the difference between the victor’s viewpoint and the victim’s, and how we define these terms. Finally, he suggests areas to be looked at for a more successfully reconciled future.
I found this chapter thought-provoking in the perspective it presented on a reconciliation that occurs in the private space, and the role of ‘watchers of violence’ and how this interacts with the specific cultural context of conflict.
Olick, J.K. “Introduction.” In The Politics of Regret: On Collective Memory and Historical Responsibility, 3-16. New York: Routledge, 2013. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203941478
In this book, Olick explores the collective memory and what he sees as a new framework of confronting past misdeeds in which regret is more ubiquitous and elevated as a general principle. In this framework, Olick emphasizes the importance of truth and understanding among descendants rather than solely between victims and perpetrators. I found this introduction valuable as he outlines the main points he makes in his book, as well as a useful literature review in collective memory and history.
He highlights the role of narratives in shaping individual and collective identities, particularly evident in the context of historical consciousness regarding German guilt, exploring differing sociological and historical viewpoints and their debates. For example, one debate is the understanding of memory as shaped by historical experiences, in contrast to the understanding of memory as a product of present needs and interests.
Olick also organizes social memory studies into three categories: instrumental, cultural and inertial, and highlights the challenge of differentiating as well as integrating individual and collective memory.
What most struck me was Olick’s analysis in the German context. In the specific cultural frameworks in Germany, he explores how images of the past, particularly regarding the Nazi era in Germany, undergo consistency and transformation based on their moral interpretation. Mnemonic practices, such as official representations, are entrenched in the moral order of society, shaping collective remembering within temporal contexts. He also contrasts this with the context in South Africa and the exemplified distinction between quiescence and durable peace, and the complexities of reconciliation and historical responsibility.
Phillips, Ruth B. “Settler Monuments, Indigenous Memory.” In Monuments and Memory Made and Unmadeedited by Robert S. Nelson and Margaret Olin, 281-304. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 2003.
This collection of essays titled ‘Monuments and Memory Made and Unmade’ examines the practice of monuments and collective memory across history and cultures. The book particularly looks at the larger historical of the monument and its function in society, how monuments are created, how they coalesce memory, and how monuments affect society once created.
The chapter highlighted is titled ‘Settler Monuments, Indigenous Memory’ and examines the role of the monument as a deposit of historical possession of power. Phillips sees monuments from the perspective of the processes of cultural construction and as a product of narratives. She specifically looks at the processes of decolonization – of building memories and forgetting in the aftermath of major shifts in regimes of power.
She addresses the kinds of negotiations that surround monuments betokening to settler societies like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. More specifically Phillips examines the particular issues that face internally colonized indigenous peoples within settler societies by examining several artistic projects undertaken during the 1990s by two First Nations artists working in Canada, the Saulteaux-Ojibwa painter Robert Houle, and the Onondaga-Iroquois photographer Jeffrey Thomas. She examines their work and argues their attempts to revise a historical discourse that has silenced indigenous memory, while countering a discourse that has traditionally constructed the indigenous artist as primitive and an outsider.
Rigney, Ann. “Reconciliation and Remembering: (How) Does It Work?” Memory Studies 5, no. 3 (July 2012): 251–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750698012440927.
This article explores the relationship between reconciliation and remembering in post-conflict societies, emphasizing the significance of public acts of remembrance in shaping the future and fostering peace and stability. It highlights the role of transitional justice in addressing past violence and the need to come to terms with historical injustices. Rigney discusses various mnemonic practices beyond legal tribunals and truth commissions, shedding light on the complexities of public remembrance in post-conflict settings and explores how these practices impact social relations and individual subjects, emphasizing the fluid and often non-linear nature of memory-making processes. Rigney also highlights the challenges of achieving a clean break with the past due to moral, emotional, and political resistances, and argues for a processual and relational approach to collective memory-making, emphasizing the ongoing interactions between past and present visions. The argue also explores the performative aspects of remembrance, including public apologies, symbolic gestures, and commemorative ceremonies, as essential components of reconciliation efforts. I found this article particularly interesting as it provides an insight in how reconciliation and remembrance can intersect in productive ways in post-conflict societies.