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.)

Analysis - Archive Stories: Facts, Fictions, and the Writing of History

I really enjoyed reading this compilation of articles regarding the archive experiences of several different people, including professional historians. At first it came as sort of a surprise to think of an archive (an institution meant to make history accessible) as limiting history. To be honest, it really forced me to think about the archive as an interpreter of history. If an archivist, or the powers that be, do not deem (or in this case, interpret) a document as having archival or enduring value they do not accession or acquire it. And therefore, it is not preserved in the archive or made available to the public. So, in a way, the archive interprets what is of historical importance. The archive is limited by what an archivist deems to be of enduring value and of historical import or significance.

The American Association of Museums believes an archive is a museum. And like other museums, the archive can misinterpret and misrepresent history. The archive can have its own agenda; can be manipulated by political pressure, as well as a slew of other things. I was a bit shocked by this. I was certainly shocked to read about the State Archives of South Africa. An archive is meant to preserve records, right? Not destroy them. Talk about misrepresenting history.

One important theme I noticed throughout the articles was the ability of the archive to present a national narrative, national identity, or a collective history. Archives project a national identity, what the country views as their true, shared story. And in a way, it seems as though the archive is capable of controlling what the public is exposed to, which narrative they will portray, and even who has access to it. Just on a small sidenote, it broke my heart to read the difficulty one person had trying to see a collection of information regarding passports. I thought that an archive existed to make that sort of knowledge accessible and available. Guess I was wrong?

I really enjoyed the articles dealing with archives in an entirely different sense than strictly a repository of documents. The archive can be so much more: a person as their own archive of memories, or a novel, or even the world wide web (heaven help us). By doing this it is almost asking what is history, what do we consider to be history?

I think Burton did an excellent job of taking these different articles, all about similar yet very different archive experiences or stories, and putting them together in a clear discussion about the variety, defense, and treatment of historical knowledge. I really find it hard to think negatively of a collection that got me to think more than I ever thought I would about archives, but I did have one problem with the collection. I would have LOVED to see an article by an archivist, or someone directly involved with an archive. For some reason I think that would have been a great archive story to have in addition to all these other great stories.

Analysis - Historic Preservation: Collective Memory and Historical Identity

This book examines the progression of historic preservation in both the United States and Britain. Through a comparison of the preservation in both countries Barthel addresses the issues and development regarding preservation in these two countries.

The book outlines the motivation for preservation, a brief history of the progression of preservation in the US and Britain, as well as some of the differences between the two countries. Barthel also examines the different interpretations of history and who has been doing the interpreting and preserving (such as the major capitalists and industrialists, women, or concerned community members, the bottom-up approach of the US and the top-down approach in Britain). She also discusses the ideologies behind preservation, the preservation efforts in regards to memorializing wars, and the role historic preservation plays in consumer-driven countries, globalized societies, as well as in societies that have a growing leisure role. Another issue discussed is the authenticity of interpretations, and the balance between entertainment and education. It is clear that Barthel covers several facets of the preservation movement as well as several of the issues they face.

One of the more important aspects of historic preservation that Barthel stresses (and one that I found particularly interesting) is the role it plays in society, the role society plays in preservation and how this affects society's collective memory. Barthel argues that historic preservation is a means by which a society can come together, embrace their diversity and plurality, and yet, through preservation, attempt to create a collective memory and establish their own historical identity. She emphasizes everyone's involvement in creating and establishing our own interpretation of history, and it seems that this idea is repeated throughout her book. Everyone, in her opinion, has a say in this "tangible" history.

Overall I thought Barthel did a good job of presenting a wide range of issues. However, one problem I had with this book was how outdated it seemed at times. In terms of how this book could be improved, I would suggest adding an afterword. I noticed that the book was published in 1996, and since then there have been some pretty significant changes in the field of historic preservation. For instance, the chapter discussing utopia and the perfect communities that manifest themselves in living history sites (or as Barthel calls it "staged symbolic communities") mentioned Colonial Williamsburg and the lack of conflict. Since this book was published there has been a significant effort to include a slave narrative into the living history interpretation. For example, the mid 1990s saw an introduction of a controversial slave market in Colonial Williamsburg. This is just one instance where these historic sites and communities have made an effort to incorporate more historically accurate events and happenings in their exhibitions and interpretations.

Analysis - Road Trips Through History: A Collection of Essays from Preservation Magazine

I absolutely love this book. Dwight Young does an excellent job of keeping the reader interested, entertained, and concerned with preservation in America. His genuine passion for preservation comes through so clearly, and I would even go as far as to say contagious. I love it (did I mention that already? And yes, I also love his parenthetical interjections of witty remarks).

On a more serious note, he highlights what he feels are the important aspects of preservation. We preserve things because we find them important. We preserve things because we believe they are worth remembering. We preserve things because we feel they have significance. We preserve things because they have meaning to us. Young makes preservation a series of personal experiences. And I love that.

Preservation, for Young, is fun. It is lively. It is certainly historic districts, old buildings, monuments, and all those things preservationists are known for. But it is so much more. It is not just buildings, sites, and districts. It is the night sky, song lyrics, a way of life. It is, most importantly, a connection with our past.

I wish I could be more constructive, find some sort of criticism. I have none. I think he does an excellent job of portraying the importance of the preservation movement and its growth, but at the same time highlighting that preservationists have not won yet. I found his writing style to be enjoyable, engaging, informal, and yet serious at the right times. Perhaps, my only possible criticism is that I wish instead of a compilation of his articles this was Young's recap of his experiences. Kind of like a new and improved, extended article.

It is clear what is important to Young: preservation, in every sense of the word. I would say he is a "born preservationist." And after reading this book, I would say I am too. And maybe that is why I absolutely love this book. Yes, from time to time I like to go to http://www.historicproperties.com/ and look to see what historic homes are for sale. And yes,I may have, at one point, purchased the 1972 copy of the National Register at my library bookstore. And yes, I may have accidentally purchased the American Heritage Book of Great Historic Places...twice. If this book accomplished anything it certainly made me unapologetic for my passion for preservation.

Analysis - Displays of Power: Controversy in the American Museum from the Enola Gay to Sensation

Displays of Power: Controversy in the American Museum from the Enola Gay to Sensation detailed the power struggles, culture wars, and conflicts that often accompanied these controversial exhibits and discussed the seemingly constant issue of who has symbolic ownership of a particular history or identity and, more importantly, who has symbolic ownership of the exhibit. Dubin focused on the role the museum played in establishing portrayals of cultures, ethnic groups, and major events in history, and the museum's shift from temple to forum (by unquestioned authority to questionable force). He examined not only the content of the exhibits, but the social and political atmosphere which surrounded the timing of the controversial exhibits, stating that the atmospheres directly related to the controversy.

Dubin examined some of the 90s most controversial exhibits, which often portrayed objects or events central to the American identity, including those found in art and history museums, as well as the Library of Congress. I felt a majority dealt with historical issues, with discussion focusing on both the history of different ethnic groups, historical events and figures, as well as art exhibits with a shock factor. Dubin discussed the wide array of battles that blemished these exhibits. There seemed to exist a constant presence of displeasure within the communities (ex: Irish-Americans towards Gaelic exhibit, intellectual community towards Freud exhibit, veterans towards Enola Gay exhibit) towards the curators or exhibit creators, or the intellectual authorities of the exhibits. He also mentioned the conflicts that arose over who funded the exhibit and the control that had over the exhibit objects, as well as the conflicts whose fire was agitated by the media and politics.

I can appreciate what Dubin is attempting to do by describing the social and political atmosphere of the era that surrounded the creation of particular exhibits. However, I found myself drifting away during the introductory portions of practically every chapter. For a book meant to describe the controversies in the American museum he spent a good portion of time discussing the environment surrounding the museum, as opposed to discussing the environment within the museum.

Even once Dubin reached the portion discussing the controversy surrounding the exhibits I still felt it lacked. Dubin presented a well-rounded discussion of the varying views and opinions, but by including so many different views you end up with a detailed account of the struggles surrounding the exhibits, and a fairly confined discussion of the conflict within the exhibits. It is clear the author is simply attempting to portray the consequences of these exhibits and their social environments; however a greater discussion on the actual exhibit itself and a more specific view or clear image of Dubin’s personal opinion on the exhibits (considering he probably had a pretty substantial understanding of its conflicts after researching and interviewing all those contributors and creators!), would have been helpful and may have even added another dimension to his findings.

Analysis - Preserving Memory: The Struggle to Create America's Holocaust Museum (cont.)

This week's readings appear to be an encounter of last week's conflicts and struggles. Linenthal focuses on the boundaries of Holocaust memory and the often re-occuring struggles to balance the different views and opinions of this shared memory. It seems as though the second portion of the book deals mostly with the constant effort to create the appropriate and acceptable balance between often multi-sided, sensitive issues.

For instance, the permanent exhibit, throughout its planning process, faced several issues. Finding a balance between civility and the horrors of the Holocaust, between personal stories and the larger narrative, between stories and images of vicitms and those of bystanders and perpetrators, and between diluting the story and portraying it in its brutal truth. There was a great attempt to balance the differing views within the content committee, and with those of the survivors, the American public, as well as those of other communities affected by the Holocaust.

This effort to balance the different views and opinions, however, may ultimately have damaged the historical integrity of the museum. The museum's interpretations should not exist to please everyone, but rather to present a historically accurate and clear account of an event, and more importantly, should promote a social dialogue. In the creation of the Holocaust Museum it was often mentioned how great the responsibility was to establish a permanent exhibit that represented a true picture of the Holocaust. It was this responsibility, in my opinion, that should have kept the museum's creators from trying to balance all the various opinions.

Take for instance the discussion surrounding the museum's location and its exhibits; "It must not be forgotten that we are a National Museum on the National Mall and we must behave accordingly" (214). In my opinion, the fault here lies with the museum. The museum's interpretation should remain unaffected by the location of the museum, as should the story the museum hopes to portray. The historical events themselves should be clearly represented in the museum, regardless of its location, or the historical integrity of the museum is compromised.

Nonetheless, Linenthal's Preserving Memory is a great study of the issues museums face throughout their creation, and more importantly how museum creators deal with a memory still vivid, and very much still alive, as well as how museum creators deal with some of the conflicts that arise.

Analysis - Preserving Memory: The Struggle to Create America's Holocaust Museum

Preserving Memory: the Struggle to Create America’s Holocaust Museum gives an excellent, in-depth, detailed look into the struggles and controversies that arose throughout the creation of America’s Holocaust Museum, beginning with its committee planning in the mid years of the 1970s to the location selection and construction of the Museum, its collection, and the memorial itself fifteen years later. The first portion of the book examines the constant disagreements that existed between politicians and survivors, survivors and museum professionals, architects and politicians, and so on and so forth. A common theme, which Linenthal highlights throughout the first half of the book, is the difficulty present when constructing a shared memory.

Linenthal followed the dialogue that existed between the core creators and shapers of this living memorial. He focused on their discussions of the appropriateness of the Holocaust in American life and national memory, who owned the Holocaust (was it the six million Jews who perished, or the five million others?), how the Holocaust should be memorialized, and with whom the story would be shared. This conversation would shift at times, focusing on the appropriate location of the memorial, what the memorial should consist of, its appearance, the storyline of the Holocaust and its definition, who would have ownership of the memory, the inclusion of controversial artifacts, and so on. Linenthal portrayed effectively that there is great difficulty in creating and constructing a shared memory, especially in regards to constructing a share remembrance of the Holocaust.

Edit:

If I had to come up with one criticism it would be that I believe the book could have been better organized. Linenthal’s information was so inclusive, and his chapters were so full of information that at times I felt overwhelmed with facts and names. If I were to give one recommendation it would be to either organize the book either solely thematically or chronologically, but not both.

On a more personal note, as someone who visited the museum a couple years ago, I found it very interesting to read about what ideas came forward that did not stick. And at times I recalled very clearly images of artifacts Linenthal discussed towards the end of the first portion of his book.