As Americans we choose to celebrate certain events from our past. Which events and who chooses them is the basis of John Bodnar’s book, Remaking America: Public Memory, Commemoration, and Patriotism in the Twentieth Century. It explores the way vernacular or local memory is linked to the wider world of national politics and how the past has been used for political means. Vernacular memory, that which local communities create to celebrate foundings or local heroes is inherently threatening even if it is frequently converted to serve the needs of official patriotic memory. It is through the unequal exertions of power that certain memories are commemorated while others disappear into fog of forgetfulness.
Through rather broad and recurring generalizations, Bodnar shows how the cultural elite, those with political and economic power, have distorted symbols to stand for the ideals that promote their interests. Vernacular memory was grounded in local interests and associations that were known, felt, or experienced directly. As a number of small communal or regional experiences, vernacular memory acted as a divisive force pulling the country apart. Official memory “…stressed the desirability of maintaining the social order and existing structures. (Bodnar, p 246)” As originators of vernacular culture died ties between the community and the memory weakened, easing the way for the memories adoption by the government. This is why the cultural elite and national government worked to codify symbols and tweak them to encourage national unity.
An important aspect of memory, especially vernacular, is its constant evolution through time and experience. Vernacular memory is especially susceptible because of tactile experience, as distance from the individual and the event increased so did the emotions pertaining to that event. Bodnar believes that history is a very politicized event, over time separation between individual and event occurs and indifference seems to set in. In the end power breaks down resistance and the view of those with power usually dominates, this is shown through experience of the nation-state’s overwhelming need to show memory as a unifying and bonding experience. In the past change has been described as progress, an orderly procession of events that have led to current state of economic success. Officials use this progression to derail fears about current crisis or defuse the pain and turmoil that so frequently accompanies drastic change.
Following wars, such as the Civil War and the World Wars, more commemoration focused on bringing the country together and celebrating triumph over “the enemy”. Focus on personal experience, the vernacular memory, was frequently much more sobering, death, pain, hardships, and loss.
Even today we face the concern of changing and changed cultural symbols, an unavoidable phenomenon. As political and social power changes hands the meaning of symbols will morph as well. “New symbols will have to be constructed…and old ones will have to be invested with new meaning. (Bodnar, p 114)” In our time of political disunity and increasing numbers of divergent communities we will see if the need for political symbols of unity are truly necessary or if personal commemoration and memory can act as a force of solidarity for our nation.
The Final Frontier?
15 years ago
1 comment:
I would say that over the years it appears public memory has changed. I believe it has changed for the better. How easily public memory can be changed it is what I what I believe Bodnar is trying to get across to the reader in his book. I like how you included the cultural elite in you comment because they have long had and continue to have the political and economic power to be able to distort symbols that stand for the ideals that promote their interests. This was very evident this year during our presidential election. Both sides had political elite that used words and symbols that tried to persuade to their views. Look at the final result from the presidential election it would be interesting to see how Bodnar would feel about commemoration in America that took place across the country. I think if anything commemoration in America has progressed toward a broader national narrative influenced by the political of powers. While the candidate I supported did not win it was emotional to see the faces on the people in Grant Park in Chicago. When just sum 40 years earlier African Americans were not allowed in the park, now our nation’s first African American president accepted the nomination there was amazing. Looking back to the book and the events of last night the reader should be able to see how patriotism influences commemoration. I was influenced last night. While I am not a Democrat, I am an American and I was truly moved by everything that happened. Throughout his acceptance speech Obama, spoke of patriotism, the strength of America, how we are a nation united, and how yes we can change. I think if Bodnar heard Obama’s speech he would not be surprised of events that were taking place. Using Brent’s last sentence “In our time of political disunity and increasing numbers of divergent communities we will see if the need for political symbols of unity are truly necessary or if personal commemoration and memory can act as a force of solidarity for our nation”. I think last night we found out. The way McCain conceded showed me personally that the commemoration and the memory of the events were extremely important in our nation’s history and they would be a force in the solidarity of our nation
Post a Comment