Memory Place and Power

Memory Place and Power

Monuments are structures, usually three-dimension, which are made to memorialize an event or a person. Examples of monuments include historical buildings, statues, cultural assets, and archaeological sites. However, counter – monuments are those that discard and renegotiate these traditional structures that represent past events. In recent decades there is a rise in counter – monuments globally. This paper will be examining the consequences of counter-monuments to power and hence coming up with a conclusion on whether it’s a source of state power or not.

Monuments such as cities are medium and the critical outcome of power. They are not only in the administrative or the economic but also in a symbolic sense. Hegemonic ideologies are attained when beliefs of the ruling party are referred through hegemony, the creating consensus of the subordinate sets in their marginalization. Therefore, the ruling party may influence the small groups due to their power. If the ruling party uses counter-monuments in any way, it may affect its state power. For example, if they spread the ideologies of anti-monuments to the marginalized groups, they may end up gaining state power. However, it may also lead to a decline in the state power of the ruling party. Thus, it can affect the state power either positively or negatively due to their ideologies. According to the top-down reactions, anti-monuments may stimulate the state power of a given state. The top-down response is where people make decisions directly from the monument before going into its inner meaning. Statues that were used by dictators to show power may not fare well with the current leaders. Hence counter-monuments will be the source of state power in this case.

Political leaders use monuments to denote their dominant worldviews in space. Accordingly, monuments signify selective historical tales concentrating only on actions and identities that contented the political leaders. Dominant status is one that is accepted by the majority. The ruling party will not take this for granted. As a result, if people believe in counter monuments, it may be taken for granted by the ruling body. Politically this dishonor of the statues found to be valuable by people may have a negative impact. The decline of socialism as a political ideology in the world was surprising to those who lived in the times when socialism was portrayed as an ideological regime that would last forever. The permanence of socialism can be seen in many monuments across the world, such as the staline statues and those of other communist leaders across the world. The architectural designs of many structures in many countries whose regimes were communists are inspired by designs that serve as symbols and representations of communist power. Most of the communist statues are being destroyed and removed from urban/public spaces in many countries in the world. The removal of such symbols of power and dominance is enough evidence that people, especially the younger generation, are tired of the nostalgic memories of dictatorial repressive regimes that these monuments bring. For instance, people cheered with jubilation when the shiny red star that stood on the central committee of the communist party tower in Sofia.

As monuments symbolize power, they are seen as a representation of the values and principles to which a particular regime and country subscribes.revolutions have seen the monuments and statutes that represent past leaders and their values brought down and new ones erected. The new monuments are meant to convey a message of the new values and principles that come with a particular revolution. When the Jim Crow system was set up in the 1890s, many monuments that represented the values and principles of the confederates were erected. The monuments were defaced and brought down in the 1920s at black disenfranchisement was at is peak. The monuments showed that in the United States south, white supremacy was still something that the people treasure. The people who commissioned the setting up of the statues represented what the tools of power stood for, and the beliefs of the  people. The monuments were also set up to counter the influence of civil rights movements that fought for the rights of black plantation and domestic workers. The rights groups were also at the forefront of the antislavery campaigns.

Monuments can also be considered as the hub of the collective memory in an urban center. To critically understand how a monument can be a tool of power by being a carrier of collective memory, one needs to view urban space as a meeting point between social-cultural and material aspects of a particular society. The tangible nature of monuments and anti-monuments allows us to view society in terms of physical items that are produced through human effort and which are interconnected through cultural, traditional, and social practices. When people associate themselves or are identified through the artifacts or physical objects such as city-scapes, villages, collective households, public parks, etc. it is apparent that such physical locations are considered as symbols of power.

Art can be generally be defined as a resistance virtue. This is why it is mostly the basic driving factor towards the rising popularity of counter monuments in recent decades. These artistic monuments offer a different commemorative experience than traditional monuments. The counter monuments express the people’s desires for change and express how much they detest the traditional means of remembrance. According to Umberto Eco, the difference between monuments and anti-monuments lies in the fact that monuments are based on traditional art, while anti monuments are based on classical art.

On the other hand, if the statues honored, then it will have a positive impact on state power. State-imposed monuments are statues or symbols which show the power of a given state. These monuments are mostly developed by the ruling government to show its potential. For example, it may be a statue of the ruling president. It also may be the coinage or currency of the state to show its power. If these statues will not be put in use, it indicates that there will be no power of a country to teach. Hence, counter monuments as the state-imposed monument is a tool of state power.  The anti-monuments are meant to elicit different responses or opinions regarding issues that represent the policies of the institutions of power. Through counter monuments, people voice or express their displeasure at the continued repetition of the commemoration of events that necessarily do not have a positive impact on their lives or even any impact at all.

In conclusion, anti-monuments are a tool of state power. As discussed above, it shows how the ability of different states is affected by counter-monuments. Monuments are critical tools of state power. If state-imposed statues do not use to represent the power of the country, then no control will see out of the ruling party. Counter monuments is a tool of state power.

Work Cited

ERőSS, Ágnes. “In memory of victims”: Monument and counter-monument in Liberty Square, Budapest.” Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 65.3 (2016): 237-254.

Karam, Beschara. “William Kentridge’s Monument (1990) as counter-monument and the embodiment of negative aesthetics.” Image & Text: a Journal for Design 27.1 (2016): 75-101.