Sanford Levinson’s, Written in Stone: Public Monuments in Changing Societies, addresses the role of government involvement in regards to public monuments and memorials, focusing mainly on the Southeast region of the United States. Levinson’s discussion about the changing governments in Hungary and Russia and the subsequent changes in the countries’ public monuments sets the groundwork for his discussion on the legality and constitutionality of government involvement in public monuments in the U.S. Because Levinson focuses the majority of his discussion on the American South, the issue at hand surrounds the memorialization and commemoration of the Confederate past. Levinson’s experience in constitutional law helps him illustrate his point that government should not involve itself in the creation of or location of public monuments. One way in which Levinson backs this belief is by arguing that government involvement with public monuments is similar to government involvement with religion, that is, they shouldn’t be involved; but his explanation makes for one of his more interesting arguments.
Part of the process of creating a public monument is in the decision of whom or what event is to be memorialized. Levinson goes on to wax philosophically about the somewhat absurd nature of deciding what is the most important event or person in history to honor in stone. History is always popularly told by the victors and, therefore, the majority of public monuments commemorate those “great men” and symbolic events that support their (winning) version of history. In the case of the American South, the public monuments memorialize the so-called “lost cause” of the Confederacy, and because slavery was THE issue of the Civil War, these public monuments have come under fire because they are seen as a means of venerating the “peculiar institution,” that is, slavery. Levinson defends, yet at the same time offers alternatives, for these contested public monuments because they are a part of our history. If these testaments to past events and our past culture are removed or destroyed because they represent an undesirable part of our history, then it is as if we are ignoring or attempting to erase that part of our past. While there are several reasons why that is a horrible idea, Levinson expertly explains, by way of a simile (what if our parents had not met, then we wouldn’t exist), how the events of our past makes us who we (as a country/society) are today.
Overall Levinson’s book was an interesting read and got me to think about public monuments in a way I hadn’t before. The only issue I can take with his writing is that he seems to try to be too politically correct at times. It bothered me that he referred to the Civil War as “the events of 1861-65” (pg. 38) and never as the “Civil War” because (apparently, I’ve never heard about this) there is much debate among scholars as to what the more accurate term for those “events” is. Regardless of that issue though, this book definitely offers an interesting perspective on and new ways to think about public monuments, from their role in society to the role of those who have them commissioned.
PWG Bridal Show- February 8, 2009
15 years ago
3 comments:
I thought it was interesting how he related historical narrative to one's parents. I am not sure how he thought of it, but it honestly helped put into perspective the importance of incorporating every aspect of history. It is common sense that if your parents did not marry that you would be a different person, or may not even be here. Similarly, the government's role in manipulating history has attempted to alter the identity of many. Censorship by the government, through vague descriptions on plaques and textbooks assigned in public schools, has resulted in a slanted view of history. In essence, you truly do "have to tell the history, warts and all" to obtain an accurate understanding of one's heritage.(103)
I definitely agree with you. Monuments are testaments to our past, and yes, sometimes they are undesirable, but I think they're worth preserving just because they represent that portion of our history. And it's kind of like Levinson said, they act as a reminder never to repeat. And they also act as great places to have discussions, whether its the role race plays in past or current societies, or something equally as sensitive. And it's like you said, you cannot try and erase your past.
And I found your critique really interesting. I noticed too the way he worded his way around issues. I wonder if that's not a result of his law school education?
I can't help but wonder how much his legal background affected his terminology throughout the book. Like you noted, he would not refer to the civil war as such since it was deemed controversial. It's always interesting to explore why an author writes. Such as, why did Levinson choose to write a book about monuments as a legal scholar? I think his political correctness fits well with the fact that his book discusses pulic space, which is also often forced to be politically correct throughout time.
Post a Comment