Analysis: Written in Stone: Public Monuments in Changing Societies

Sanford Levinson portrays the importance of public monuments in a wide range of different societies. This book centers on the purpose of monuments - whether they have ideological purposes, political purposes, or are meant to label something as important to our national or collective memory. By commemorating or memorializing something we are, in effect, legitimizing their memory.

Levinson discusses the importance of public spaces, not limiting himself to statues or memorials, but also discussing flags, stamps, street names, holidays, and so on. Nor did Levinson limit himself to the United States. He put monuments into a global context – looking at Hungary, Zimbabwe, St. Petersburg (or Leningrad), Moscow, and so on. I think this really added to Levinson’s analysis of how we commemorate our past – exploring a wide variety of aspects regarding commemoration and memorial.

More than that, this book is also raising the question of what we do with these monuments in societies that are constantly changing - different nationalities are gaining greater political hold, or changes within a multicultural society, or the country faces regime changes. The question is, do we leave these monuments of the past in what should be neutral public spaces, or do we adjust them to fit the current political state, do we remove them from the public’s view, transfer them to museums (where the statute is safely separated from the present and placed in the past) or in some cases, do we destroy them?

I think Levinson’s discussion of what to do with these monuments is by far the most interesting. He gives several options at the conclusion of his essay, nine in fact. And I have to say, the idea of a “managed contention site” caught my attention. If public history sites, such as museums, are taking on the mission to become forums and sites to initiate social dialogue, then these museums are great places to house these monuments and take on the role of these “managed contention sites.” Let’s start a discussion on racism, or the role of slavery in the South. I cannot think of a better place to discuss this then a history museum. Why not put some of these controversial monuments there?

In my opinion, these statues, or monuments, represent our history. Often times, they represent an unfortunate time in our history – perhaps they highlight ideals that we no longer hold belief in. However, I agree with Levinson (who agreed with the following statement): “You have to tell history, warts and all” (Levinson, 103). These monuments represent what our country once deemed worthy of our remembrance. Maybe they do not belong outside capitol buildings, or on major thoroughfares, but they absolutely belong.

(On a side note, I thought Levinson’s occupation as a constitutional lawyer added a really interesting dimension to his discussion on the rights to display the confederate flag above capitol buildings versus the rights of a private citizen to display the confederate flag, or confederate battle flag. Although, I must admit, his discussion of the confederate flag seemed a bit tedious at times.)