Can memorials heal the wounds?

The magazine of the EUROM - European Observatory on Memories November 2018 Observing Memories 2 THE MEMORY OF THE PERPETRATORS AND THEIR LEGACIES VALENTINA SALVI Once victors, now victims. LEIGH PAYNE Left Unsettled JORDI GUIXÉ The Valley of the Fallen KIRSTEN JOHN-STUCKE Memorial museum of Wewelsburg EXPERT’S VIEW EUROPE INSIGHT OVERVIEW ENZO TRAVERSO GEORGES MINK HORST HOHEISEL The complexity of the past The international spread of state interventionism in history “The long shadow of the past” in the short light of present EUROM is led by Fundació Solidaritat de la Universitat de Barcelona with the support of the European Commission – Europe for Citizens Programme. THE MEMORY OF THE PERPETRATORS AND THEIR LEGACIES Observing Memories LED BY WITH THE SUPORT OF The European Observatory on Memories (EUROM) is a transnational network of institutions and civil society organizations committed to research and promotion of remembrance policies and memorial initiatives. Its main goal is to promote collective and citizenship memories through a plurality of approaches and diverse perspectives. EUROM is led by the University of Barcelona’s Solidarity Foundation with the support of the program ‘Europe for Citizens’ of the European Commission. Meet our partners at www.europeanmemories.net/network Legal deposit: B 27726-2017 ISSN 2565-2923 ISSN (online) 2565-2931 SUMMARY EDITORIAL 3 Jordi Guixé, Director of EUROM DEEP VIEW: THE MEMORY OF PERPETRATORS 4 Once victors, now victims. How do the Argentine military remember their recent past? Valentina Salvi 12 Left Unsettled: Confessions of Armed Revolutionaries. Leigh Payne EXPERT’S VIEW 20 26 About the complexity of the past. Interview to Enzo Traverso Mausoleum of terror. “Fallen in Pamplona and Cuelgamuros”. Jordi Guixé EUROPE INSIGHT 36 The international spread of state interventionism in history and historical memory. Georges Mink 42 48 European remembrance policies. Markus J. Prutsch “Citizens’ engagement is at the core of the Europe for Citizens programme”. Interview to Gilles Pelayo OVERVIEW 50 56 64 “The long shadow of the past” in the short light of present. Horst Hoheisel Can memorials heal the wounds? Ana Milosevic The one who sows winds, reaps storms. Validity of the Damnatio memoriae. Fernando Hernández REVIEW 70 72 Festive Spaces, 2016. Kristina Norman Books. Tsjalling Wierdsma The Social Life of Memory: Violence, Trauma, and Testimony in Lebanon and Marocco Law and Memory: Towards Legal Governance of History 76 “Auschwitz: Not long ago. Not far away”. Travelling memory of the Holocaust. David González 80 History museums in the Caucasus. Between soviet nostalgia and current regional disputes. Oriol López SIGHTSEEING 84 “Ideology and Terror of the SS”. An exhibition about the perpetrators, victims and bystanders in the memorial museum of Wewelsburg. Kirsten John-Stucke 1 OVERVIEW Can memorials heal the wounds? Ana Milošević University of Leuven (KU Leuven), Leuven International and European Studies (LINES) n 2014, the Swedish artist Jonas Dahlberg won a competition for a memorial to the I victims of the Utøya massacre. The project, called Memory wound, aimed to cut an island into half to symbolise the death of 77 persons killed during the 2011 Norway attacks. But controversy beset Dahlberg’s proposal. Environmentally-friendly Norwegians opposed changes in the natural landscape. Local residents — already traumatised by the mass killings, stood against the project. “How we are supposed to heal the profound wounds”, they wondered, “with such a constant reminder of the tragedy?” Perhaps even without knowing it, the Norwegians raised a very important and somehow forgotten question: What is the purpose of memorials? Can memorials help healing of the wounds or do they simply keep them open? Memorial purpose For better or for worse, ours is the age of memory. Over the last three decades, the term “memory” has seen an inflationary dissemination. Some authors even warn of a memorial mania (Doss, 2010) – a sort of pathology of our modern societies. The current upsurge in the (de)construction of memorial sites revolves also around mass production and consumption of memory. On the one hand, we overproduce memory using obsessively memorial language and tools. On the other, we are terrorised by the forgetting (see Rieff, 2016), or better said the absence of memory. Not remembering or wanting to forget is associated with amnesiatic or denial state. Our infatuation with memory and memorials might be the real reason why we do not discuss anymore whether and why to memorialise but rather ponder on how. 56 Observing Memories ISSUE 2 How we handle memorialisation often depends further lacerate the wounds inflicted by tragedy and on who is directing the process, and importantly violence. what role is assigned to memorials. Differently from the past that celebrated survival, resistance, Transitional justice experts working in the Balkans, victories, and heroes, our present is built on Sri Lanka, Rwanda, or Nepal (just to name some) monuments that primarily commemorate trauma. know this very well. While the global transitional The purposes of these memorials are multiple: justice fetishizes trials and truth commissions, as a form of symbolic reparations, justice for the memorialisation is often used in conflicting ways. victims, acknowledgement, tools for dealing with To both promote and counter the new knowledge — the past. Memorials are conceived as ethical and or truth if you like — about the past. In the post- political promises of non-recurrence that clearly genocide Rwanda, the government uses the victims have a didactic end. They are meant to teach future as a perpetual public testament to the manner of generations the lessons from the past so that their death. In Murambi (1) - one of six genocide tragedies of the history cannot repeat again. museums in Rwanda, 848 preserved human corpses remain on view, years after the genocide Bizarrely enough - we know little about memorials as a part of social and personal recovery. (see Longman 2017) (1). This macabre testimony of death is not only offensive for the victims, but utterly dehumanising – as it uses the human remains to promote political legitimacy of the current It is unclear whether memorials indeed help to heal government. More than 20 years after the wars in the the wounds of antagonism and what is their role Balkans, memorialisation has evolved into an ethno- in the prevention of future violence. The past, after political instrument for nation-building and virtue all, has its ways of coming back to life. But what signalling – a conspicuous expression of moral we know for certain is that memorials don’t always values (2). Arguably, it serves to keep the wounds act as a unifying force for social groups. Sometimes alive rather than to support reconciliation and the they can also deepen the lines of division and healing process (Touquet and Milosevic, 2018). Grassroot memorial after the Bataclan attacks | Ana Milošević OVERVIEW 57 In these and many other cases, the victims and survivors are used as a political currency. Only rarely do they have a say in the handling of the public memorialisation. As the time goes by the victims and survivors perceive memorialisation as a perpetuation of past conflict and lived trauma. The meanings of their personal tragedies and suffering are appropriated by the collective. The untold story is that, more often than not, top-down memorialisation fails to meet the expectations of survivors in the aftermath of violence. With their grievances unattended, In Western societies, grassroots memorialisation has now become a socially accepted practice of mourning in a public space. survivors are often creating alternative memorial spaces that will address their needs. The Monument Quilt, for instance, is one such example. It is a crowd-sourced collection of thousands of stories from survivors of rape and abuse. Using quilts to symbolically stitch their stories together, the victims are creating and using public space to heal after sexual violence. Yet, even when memorialisation is successful – that is accepted, endorsed and practiced by the survivors, it still represents only one segment of a much broader process of addressing their needs (health and care, support, poverty, reparations). Memorial at the Maelbeek metro station in Brussels | Ana Milošević 58 Observing Memories ISSUE 2 Kihei, US Memorials | Ana Milošević Therapeutic memorials The proliferation of memorials in recent decades is arguably the result of an impetus to mend history and its aches, to bear witness to the suffering and tragedy. Forgotten or marginalised histories are recovered. Memorials are erected to the victims of the past as a retroactive token of recognition. Yet, not only the tragedies of the past linger in our political present. Terrorist attacks, natural and man-made disasters, are forcing us to rethink how we remember and what purposes we assign to memorials. In Western societies, grassroots memorialisation has now become a socially accepted practice of mourning in a public space. Grassroots memorials are objects which serve as a focus for memory of something (an event) or someone (a person who has died). Usually they mark an untimely death and can be found in the streets, hospitals, parks, schoolyards. Numerous memorials have been created worldwide to commemorate the terrorist attacks. From 9/11 to the Toronto attacks, society itself has taken the role of a memory actor. Memorialisation is used to express solidarity and closeness, to mourn and grieve. Grassroots memorialisation, therefore, is directed towards survivors and those who perished, but also towards the society itself — seen as a victim of a collective tragedy. OVERVIEW 59 Seen how widespread grassroots memorialisation is, it clearly matters to a lot of people. To the survivors, these memorials and their accompanying commemorative activism provide a certain comfort, as they demonstrate social empathy and solidarity, closeness and understanding. But the main purpose of these memorials is to address therapeutic needs of their makers – individuals and communities. In the aftermath of violence, memorialisation in a public space helps shell shocked populations to process the impact of unexpected loss and violence (see Truc 2018). As such, memorialisation helps to restore shaken bonds in the community and reassures one’s sense of security. Graffiti in the street of the Charlie Hebdo office in Paris | PIctures: Ana Milošević Yet, some people find grassroots memorials disturbing, and even false. When the tributes placed at site start deteriorating they are an eyesore for the community. Usually this is one of the main reasons to start the dismantlement of a memorial. In Nice (France) after the lorry attack on Promenade des Anglais some of the mourners used the memorial to express anger and frustration. They were spitting at the place where the attacker was shot. In Brussels, following the attacks in 2016, a small group of anti-immigrant protesters contested the public outpouring of grief. They demolished tributes accusing the mourners of false and unjustified grief— since they didn’t know the victims. The recent terrorist attacks around Europe, however, have shown that grief transcends the sphere of personal and national. The images and stories of these memorials are replayed countless times through media forging communities around crises. Individuals and communities that did not suffer a loss have used memorialisation to express their closeness. It is through solidarity in grief that many grassroots monuments have been created in the cities and countries around the world. To remember the victims of Berlin attacks or London bombings, national landmarks such as Burj Khalifa in UEA or Tour Eiffel lit in colours of Germany and UK. Flowers and candles were left at the doorsteps of the British, Canadian or French embassies. 60 Observing Memories ISSUE 2 Memorial plaque at the Bataclan theatre | Ana Milošević Limits of remembrance wreaths laid. No political speeches were delivered on the day of commemoration, and no references to What lessons can we take from these cases? Do memorials and memorialisation support personal and societal recovery? the causes of violence made. This is understandable seen how polarising and difficult the issue of terrorism and security has been. But the criticism of the victims’ families and survivors that emerged Over the last two years, I have been studying in response to top-down memorialisation of the societal reactions in the aftermath of the Brussels terrorist attacks is also similar across the EU. They terrorist attacks. On 22 March 2016, two separate see a strong contrast between societal and political bombings occurred: one at the airport and other remembrance and want to contribute to the process in the Maelbeek metro station. Following the of distilling the meanings and values from the tragic tragedy in Brussels many memorials have emerged event and shaping the knowledge about the terrorist to commemorate 32 lost lives, and more than 300 attacks. persons that were injured ( Milošević 2018). In Belgium, a number of issues have been raised by Differently from grassroots memorials that attract the victims’ families, associations and survivors. very large numbers of people, permanent memorials On the one hand, the process of determining the and annual commemorations don’t have the same memorial in Brussels has proven to be very divisive emotional resonance. On the first anniversary of as it is its resolute, memorial itself. The survivors the attacks in Paris (2015) officials unveiled small and the victims’ families, as well as some of the plaques at each of the three bombing sites. One year associations that represent them, have put forward after the attacks on the London bridge, the Tree their own views on the process. They wish to have a of Healing was planted. In Brussels, a permanent proactive role in the overall memorialisation process, memorial was created by the government at the from monument making to commemorations Schuman Square. organising - instead of being simply the object of remembrance. This message comes across different In all of these cases, annual commemorative interviews I have conducted between 2016 and 2018 ceremonies followed the same script. Minutes of with survivors from the Zaventem and Maelbeek silence were marked, names of the victims read, bombings sites in Brussels. OVERVIEW 61 The planning of a permanent memorial was memorialisation as a means of symbolic reparation plagued by conflicts. Massive consultations on and recognition is overshadowing other more remembrance included all levels of Belgium (very pressing needs and demands of the survivors complex) government. It resulted with a plan for and victims’ families. The issues of reparations, a memorial for all the victims of terrorist attacks access to medical care and adequate psychological (not only of the attacks in Brussels) to “allow the support are some of their key concerns. A young relatives of the victims, survivors and citizens to girl that survived the Maelbeek metro attack told gather and remember.” A call for proposals was me, “commemorations are like a political memorial launched already six months after the attacks and circus. Everyone is here to remember that day, to a monument ordered for a sum of 100.000 euro. hold our hands and take picture. But I have to live Many survivors and local residents questioned the with this by the rest of my life. I am reliving that decisions of the Government, namely the cost and day 365 days per year.” The role of politics, in her location of the monument. Belgian decision-makers view, is to acknowledge their tragedy and injustice opted to install the monument in the European suffered by providing protection and reparation, Quarter, thus far from the actual places of tragedy taking care of their needs and ensuring security (Zaventem airport and Maelbeek metro station) and for the community – and to a lesser extent to certainly not in the city centre that emerged as a commemorate. symbol of post-attacks remembrance. The unveiling of the monument at Schuman Square was another moment of division and delusion for some of the survivors in Brussels. Besides its questionable aesthetics ( de gustibus non disputandum est), the survivors were disappointed because the names of the victims were not engraved onto the monument. “It’s too neutral, it doesn’t communicate and it’s clearly not saying what happened and how it happened” – says one of the survivors of the Zaventem bombings. For the victims it is very hard to identify with “impersonal memorial” that offers “no reading of the tragedy.” Unveiling of a memorial plaque at the Zaventem Airport and attending the commemoration at the Maelbeek metro were also very emotional moments for the survivors and victims’ families. Every return to the site of the crime, even for the reason of commemorating, stirs up very strong feelings that some of the survivors are not ready to relive yet. Many interviewed survivors don’t harbour any illusion that a memorial in Brussels will help the healing process, provide them some closure, or even a sort of relief. Still, they believe that having a memorial is useful to “leave a footprint of these terrible events in history.” Yet, overemphasis on 62 Observing Memories ISSUE 2 The monument at Schuman Square in Brussels. The survivors were disappointed because the names of the victims were not engraved onto the monument | Ana Milošević Do we need memorials or memorials need us? When an unexpected tragedy strikes individual and communities are shell-shocked. We feel sadness, anger, disbelief and grief – and sometimes all at once. We mourn prematurely severed bond between the dead and the living. The questions about the healing, growth and a path to resilience come only later. Memorials can provide a place of sanctuary for mourning, but the therapeutic purpose of memorials and remembrance should not be taken for granted. It would seem that, for the survivors of terrorist attacks, memorialisation matters more in the immediate aftermath of a tragedy and violence. It symbolises acknowledgment, societal solidarity, closeness and empathy. It’s a sort of a sympathetic hug of a society of strangers. But when candles burn and flowers wither away, political or societal pressure to memorialise must not be forced upon the survivors and their families. Remembrance has its therapeutic limits but in order to succeed it requires that those who are left behind have the ownership of their own grief process. Whoever suffered a loss or a tragedy, knows well that post-traumatic recovery and coping with loss needs a lot of time. There is no magic formula that can help dealing with the grief and void left by a tragedy. Psychology teaches that a road to healing goes through five stages of grief, the outcome of which is supposed to be acceptance of loss. It means being able to get a hold of the pain and acknowledging the “new” reality in which our dear ones do not reside anymore. Yet, every road to recovery is different: sometimes that road begins with remembrance, and sometimes it will depart from it. More than a right to remembrance, we must offer to the survivors the right to move forward on the path of healing and recovery. References Bibliography (1) https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/theinsistence-of-memory/ Erica Doss (2010). Memorial Mania. Chicago: University Press. (2) https://balkanist.net/placing-all-bets-onmemorials-memory-mania-goes-balkans/ Gérôme Truc (2018). Shell shocked. The social response to terrorist attacks. Malden: Polity Press. David Rieff (2016). In Praise of forgetting. Historical memory and its ironies. London: Yale University Press. Ana Milošević (2018). “Historicizing the present: Brussels attacks and heritagization of spontaneous memorials.” International Journal for Heritage Studies 24(1): 53-65. Timothy Longman (2017). Memory and Justice in Post-Genocide Rwanda. Cambridge: University Press. Heleen Touquet and Ana Milošević (2018). “When Reconciliation Becomes the R-Word: Dealing with the Past in Former Yugoslavia” in Krondorfer, Bjorn (ed). Reconciliation in Global Context: Why it is Needed and How it Works. New York: CU NY. OVERVIEW 63