Tuesday, November 4, 2008

Public Memory & Patriotism*

John Bodnar’s, Remaking America: Public Memory, Commemoration, and Patriotism in the Twentieth Century, is a study in the role of vernacular and national interests in shaping public memory through acts of commemoration. Bodnar’s study finds that local, vernacular interests play a large role in national memory; however they do so through time and manipulation by those in power. Vernacular interests are those of small local groups, either ethnic communities, or small towns in general. Their interests in acts of public commemoration revolve around their town settlement (the original pioneers), or the local townspeople who fought in any of America’s wars. Essentially, public memory, in local instances, involves emotional ties and personal history. Bodnar found that once those generations that had an affiliation to either pioneers or war veterans had passed, the vernacular interest shifted to a general national patriotism, but was still fueled by the local association to the national story.

Government officials who worked to establish a strong patriotic positive national public memory stressed the importance of progress. Whereas vernacular interests lay in the past, national interest tried to focus on progress and looked to the future. Officials, however, couldn’t deny the power of local acts of commemoration and therefore tried to use that attachment to their local history and its symbols and incorporate it into the national story. In other words, officials realized that in order to raise national morale and patriotism they needed to incorporate vernacular history into the national story. The ability of government to do this successfully is what allows that national patriotism to increase as the earlier generations who are tied closest to the vernacular history pass on.

Overall what Bodnar finds in his study that vernacular interests feed into the national story. While government officials would rather have public memory focus on the national story and increase the public’s sense of patriotism, they’ve realized that local (community, ethnic group, town, etc.) history is what ignites people’s passion and interest. By playing into that interest and weaving it into the national story, the national government can achieve this goal. I can’t help but be reminded of the Rosenzweig and Thelen study that found that people connect to history on a personal level, they look for their personal connection to the past in order to relate and to have a vested interest. The success of local acts of commemoration illustrates people’s desire and ability to connect to a past that they relate to, but as each generation moves further away from those pioneers that are being honored, the story must move on to look at the bigger (i.e. national) picture.
________________________________________________________

*Disclaimer: I had the worst time trying to read this book. If this blog seems incoherent and disjointed (which I think it does), I apologize. While I thought Bodnar’s book read fairly easily I felt like I was muddling through the whole thing barely retaining any of the information; as soon as I read it, I seemed to forget it.

4 comments:

Katie Adams said...

I like your disclaimer. I too found it difficult to wrap my head around Bodnar's writing. While I understood his argument, it took me a while to figure out where he was going with his various terms of "ordinary people" and "vernacular" beliefs, along with "official" beliefs and "cultural" influence. He needed to stick with one term when talking about certain subjects instead of jumping back and forth. Maybe I should write a disclaimer on mine too...

Shelby said...

Your disclaimer said pretty much everything I wanted to say in my blog. I found Bodnar's word choice very esoteric and hard to follow. I think the idea of public memory is an inriguing, especially the idea that government molds it. Kind of a little big brother if you think about it. I couldn't get into the argument however because I couldn't figure out what the main historical argument was. Our lecture was on pageantry but I struggled to see how this book related to that.

Kristen said...

I think your disclaimer does a pretty great job of wrapping up all of our opinions! I think his argument was interesting, I think that public memory is certainly an interesting topic, I think the fact that he states it is shaped to create social unity and loyalty to the country is super interesting. But at the same time, it was difficult to read. I felt it was kind of repetitive, kind of slow-moving, and not entirely engaging. I just could not get into it. So I was glad to see your disclaimer, that I was not the only one! I feel like I should go back and put a disclaimer on my blog as well, haha.

Will C said...

After reading your post and most of the comments I wish I had put a disclaimer on my blog. You were able to say in about a paragraph everything I though and wanted to say in my blog but did not know just how to put it. I think you disclaimer was a good idea and an effective add to your blog. I too found this book difficult to read mostly because at times I had no idea what Bodnar writing about. While it took me some time to understand his argument, I was eventually able to figure out where he was trying to lead the read with his use of various terms. I agree that he needed to stick with one term throughout the book when he was writing about certain subjects. I got confused several times because his writing was all over the place. Like Katie, Shelby, and Kristen I could not get into many of his arguments because I could not figure out what the many historical event the argument was over even was. While this is a good book it is dry, I do believe anyone interested in the social meaning of public ceremonials will want to read this book