Introduction:
Table for analyzing narrative functions in monuments.
Reference:
Körber, Andreas (2014): De-Constructing Memory Culture. In: Helle Bjerg, Andreas Körber, Claudia Lenz und Oliver von Wrochem (Hg.): Teaching historical memories in an intercultural perspective. Concepts and methods : experiences and results from the TeacMem project. 1. Aufl. Berlin: Metropol-Verlag (Reihe Neuengammer Kolloquien, Bd. 4), 145 – 151 + CD-File.
This article is a follow-up to the discussion on Stéphane Lévesques model of historical competencies as presented in Public History Weekly, a few days ago, titled “Removing the ‘Past’: Debates Over Official Sites of Memory“1 and my first extended comment on this published here on this blog.
A crosstabulation of competencies and patterns/logic of sensemaking as suggested by Stéphane Lévesque2 is indeed useful for “reading” individual monuments and making sense of their “message”, also. Lévesque’s filling of the table is a bit abstract, general for this, so the following would in part be my own understanding.
It also is based on Rüsen’s notion that while the different patterns were developed sequentially over time, to “older” ones are not lost, but still available and indeed visible in modern day thinking, in fact most of the time in combinations. What characterizes modern-time historical thinking, then, is the presence and dominance of “genetic” thinking, while pre-modern thought would not have this type at its disposal at all. But then, our examples here are all “modern”, so that it may be a question of dominance and relative weight.
Take a monument for a civil war general:
Consider an example from Hamburg, where I work3: On our “Rathausmarkt”, there is a monument, honouring Hamburg’s dead from WW1. When it was erected in 1932, it looked as it does today. The inscription on one side reads “FOURTY THOUSAND SONS OF TOWN LEFT/LOST THEIR LIVES FOR YOU” (in German: “Vierzig Tausend Söhne der Stadt ließen ihr Leben für Euch”) while the other side shows relief by Ernst Barlach depicting a woman (mother) and child (daughter) apparently comforting each other in mourning (and therefore somewhat reminiscent of a pietà).
Ernst Barlach: Relief (1931; Re-Construction of 1948) on Hamburg Town Hall Square Monument . Photo from Wikimedia Commons (public domain): https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/Hamburg_Mahnmal_01_KMJ-adj.jpg
In 1938, the relief was exchanged for a “phoenix” flying up.4
Hans-Martin Ruwoldt (1938): Phoenix on Hamburg Town Hall Square Monument. Photo by https://www.denk-mal-gegen-krieg.de/kriegerdenkmaeler/hamburg-lo-os/
In 1938, under Nazi rule, the relief was exchanged for a „phoenix“. Did it change the narrative and commemorative evaluation of the loss of the 40000 Hamburgians? To my view, it most certainly did.
The addition of the last part “FOR YOU” to the inscription already before the initial installation of the monument was a concession to the right parties, changing (in Rüsen‘s terms) a more traditional message into a more exemplary one:
While the combination of the initial wording without the addition „FOR YOU“ and the mother-child-relief fit into a development of monument culture developed in WW1 which has been identified in retrospect, namely monuments which which do no longer provide an authoritative suggestion of the meaning of the protagonist‘s death, but rather question this meaning.5 It did so because it expressed the continuous loss, referring to the dead soldiers rather as victims of a greater context of war, to be mourned, by pointing to their their death and loss as the rather tragic origins of the common grief.
Adding „FOR YOU“ to the inscription did not fully eradicate this negative-traditional narrative pattern, but added an additional layer of different narrative and evaluative character both to the deaths, which are ascribed a purpose, and to the conceptual framing of the dead, which are no longer only victims but also (self-)sacrifices for a common good. Interestingly, both concepts, that of victim and that of sacrifice, are present in the German term „Opfer“ explicitly used, but alluded to, here.
The exchange of the mourning mother/child-relief by a „phoenix“ in 1938, then, eradicated the thin layer of questioning the purpose and meaning of the loss, the notion of „victims“ and rendered the 40,000 Fathers, Brothers and „Sons of Town“ heroes – not only self-sacrifices for the wellbeing of their respective families, but role-models to be celebrated and emulated.6 In 1948, then, the lost Barlach-relief, was restored, alas not by Barlach himself, who had meanwhile died.
I do have a hard time constructing a genetic understanding of such a monument, maybe because a modern, genetic way of thinking needs to have been informed by the “critical” mode of at least partly de-legitimizing the orientating power of traditional and exemplaric thinking.
Maybe this is the background for modern monuments being quite different, either often non-figurative — as Peter Eisenman’s Memorial to the Murdered Jews in Berlin, or many works by Jochen Gerz7 — or taking on forms of counter-memorialization8, thus setting in motion a kind of change, not just re-present-ing a past, but encouraging or even enforcing critical reflection on it.
It is easier for the Hamburg monument: Genetic thinking would question whether not only this heroifying way of commemorating heroes (even if not individual), but also the concrete form of public acknowledging of tragic loss can be timely, after we experienced another war and an inhuman dictatorship and genocide which was not least based on feelings instigated by such commemorating.9
But there is something more to reflecting about narratives — and especially on how to relate to them. As I wrote above, Memorials are narratives. Rüsen calls them “narrative abbreviations”, pointing to them standing for a specific narrative, i.e. a specific relation between a past (under memory), the present (of the authors and erectors of the monument as well as the intended public), and with regard to a specific future, constructed only partly in verbal narrative form, but also with non-verbal and sequentially narrative elements (even though in some cases it is only the verbal inscriptions which really hint to any historical meaning).
Memorials are more than only proto-narratives. Their (often) prominent (albeit also often overlooked) positioning, their (proto-)narrative structure and their own quality for lasting a long time (cf. “monumentum exegi aere perennius), they do not only constitute a narrative relation from one temporal and social position towrds the past and the future, but also are meant to prolong the sense they make and to impose it on later generations. Monuments are about obligating their audience, the spectators with a certain narrative and interpretation. That qualifies them as parts of what we call “politics of history”, not only of commemoration, and what makes them political.
It therefore is paramount to read monuments as narratives, and not only in the de-constructive sense of “what did those erectors make of that past back then”, but also in the re-conctructive sense of “in how far or how does this narrative fit into my/our relation to that past). In other words: Standing before a monument and thinking about monuments, we all need to (and in fact do) think in a combination of understanding the others’ and deliberating our own narrative meaning-making.
Therefore we need to read them as narratives first, and become competent for it.
Monuments often take on the form of addressing people. Sometimes — as in the Hamburg case above — they address the spectator, reminding them of some kind of obligation to commemorate.10 But who is talking to whom? If the senate of Hamburg talkes to that to the Hamburg citizens of 1930 – 1932, can/will we accept that (a) the Hamburg Senate of today still admonishes us like that, and b) that we Hamburg citizens of today are still addressed in the same way?
In other cases, (inscriptions in) memorials might explicitly address the commemorated themselves, as e.g. in the confederate monument in Yanceyville, N.C., whose plaque reads “To the Sons of Caswell County who served in the War of 1861 – 1865 in answer to the Call of their County”, and continues in a “We-Voice”, signed by the Caswell Chapter of the United Daughters of the Confederacy”. So far so conventional. This might be rather unproblematic, since speaker-position and addressees are clearly marked. One might leave the monument even if one disagreed, not having to align with its narrative. Only if the presence of such commemorating in itself is inacceptable, action is immediately called for.
But there are other monuments which seem to talk from a neutral position, which in fact is that of the erectors, but by not being qualified, includes the spectator into the speaker position. The example I have ready at hand, is not from the US and not about war heroes, but again from Hamburg, this time from Neuengamme concentration camp memorial. In 1965, an “international monument” stele11 was erected there, together with a whole series of country-specific memorial plates. The inscription on the monument reads “Your suffering, your fighting and your death shall not be in vain” (my translation).
This now clearly is interesting in at least two respects: (1) it ascribes not only suffering and death, but also fighting to those commemorated and thereby possibly does not refer to those inmates who never had a chance or did not “fight”, who were pure victims, and (2) it speaks from a neutral voice which is not marked in time and social, political or event-related position. Whoever mourns at that place possibly silently co-signs the statement.
International Monument (1965) at Neuengamme Concentration Camp Memorial (partial photo; © 2006 Andreas Körber)
Consider an equal honouring of confederate generals in, say NC: “Your fighting shall not have been in vain.” I would spark much more controversy and concers — and rightly so.
Still another example, the first Hamburg monument for the victims of National Socialism (from late 1945) on the Central Cemetry in Hamburg-Ohlsdorf, has an inscription “Injustice brought Us Death — Living: Recognize your Obligation”.
Erstes Hamburger Mahnmal für die Opfer des Nationalsozialismus von 11/1945 in Hamburg Ohlsdorf. Foto von NordNordWest/Wikipedia. Lizenz: CC-BY-SA 3.0; (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/de/legalcode); Original: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mahnmal_Opfer_der_NS-Verfolgung_Ohlsdorf.jpg
Erstes Hamburger Mahnmal für die Opfer des Nationalsozialismus von 11/1945 in Hamburg Ohlsdorf; Detail. Zustand 25.3.2010; Foto © Andreas Körber
Again, for analyzing and understanding, we need to recognize. The speaker position here, is clearly (metaphoricall) held by the victims to be commemorated. But whom do they speak to? Literally, it is the “living”. In a very broad understanding, the monument/memorial therefore addresses all humans, quite in a way what Rüsen has addressed as the highest level of normative plausibility: broadening the perspective to the level of humanity.
This is not very problematic, since the inscription does talk of “duty”, not of “guilt”, it does not conflate the addressees with those who inflicted the injustice upon the victims. But it could have done. In 1945, the message would be clearly not merely universally humanistic, but at least also addressing the Germans as the society of the perpetrators. It does not condemn, but calls for recognizing the “duty” and responsibility for commemorating and non-repeating as well as overcoming the structures of NS injustice, hinting at responsibility for not preventing them or even participating in them in the first place.
And today? In how far is the message the same for today’s society in Germany? The people living in Germany today do — apart from very few exceptions — not share any personal guilt or responsibility for what happened. In how far can or should they see themselves addressed?
Again, there is no question as to the very general, humanity-related address. This is directed at any audience. But would that mean that there is no difference between any other visitor to the memorial and Germans? Has the Nazi injustice (and similarly the Holocaust) become a matter of general, universal history only? Is there no special belonging to and message for German history? All these questions can and need to be addressed — and especially so, since a considerable part of German society consists not only of people born and raised (long) after the “Third Reich”, but also of many who immigrated from other countries, societies and cultures meanwhile. Are they simply counted into the perpetrators’ society? — no, I think; but as people living in Germany, they also are adressed in a more specific way than any other visitor — and they are expected to feel addressed, also. While there may be (and often indeed is) not specific responsibility for what these memorials and monuments refer to, there surely is a specific responsibility from or out of this history — and these monuments therefore serve not only as general markers to a set past, but also as marks which have specific messages and different (but compatible) ones for different recipients. This is what also is a part of what is needed to be reflected and discussed with regard to monuments in public history culture and what history education needs to enable learners to partake in.
In order to make up our minds on monuments we have “inherited” not only in political terms, we need to reflect their specific narrative message in a spectrum of time-relations. And we need to differentiate our terminology and enable our students to master a set of concepts related. We need, e.g., to distinguish honoring forms of commemoration from reminding and admonishing ones.
In Germany we have (not easliy) developed the notion of “Mahnmal”, admonishing, to be distinguished from a mere “Denkmal” (literally a “thinking mark”). But even this distinction is insufficient. A Mahnmal (in fact the literal translation to “monument”, from Latin “admonere”) may admonish to remember our own suffering inflicted on us by ourselves, some tragic or by others, but also may admonish to not forget what we inflicted on others. This is the specific form “negative memory” of German memorial culture.
Therefore, there’s a lot more to be reflected in commemorating:
(cf. Körber 2014)
References:
Liebe Kommiliton(inn)en,
nach der ersten Anmelderunde sind noch Plätze frei — insbesondere für den Teil zu Grundwald/Tannenberg mit der Exkursion nach Polen!
Neue Anmeldefrist: 28. Februar 2017!
Anmeldungen bitte zur Sicherheit per Mail AUCH AN MICH: andreas.koerber@uni-hamburg.de
Gruß
Das Seminar ist für Lehramtsstudierende ein Fachdidaktik M.Ed.-Seminar “Weiterführung der Fachdidaktik Geschichte” (Modul 001k). Es ist für Studierende im B.A./B.Sc.-Lehramt Geschichte mit abgeschlossener Modulprüfung zugänglich und kann später im M.Ed.-Studium angerechnet werden
Körber, Andreas (27. 5. 2014): “TeacMem – Developing Competence-Oriented Teaching on Historical Memories.” Vortrag auf der Fachtagung »Gemeinsam erinnern, gemeinsam Zukunft gestalten« des Pädagogischen Austauschdienstes (PAD) der Kultusministerkonferenz am 26./27. Mai 2014 in Bonn.
Ein Kriterienkatalog zur Analyse von Ausdrucksformen historischer Erinnerungen.
Körber, Andreas “De-Constructing Memory Culture.” In: Bjerg, Helle; Körber, Andreas; Lenz, Claudia; von Wrochem, Oliver (2014; Eds.): Teaching Historical Memories in an Intercultural Perspective. Concepts and Methods. Experiences and Results from the TeacMem Project. Berlin: Metropol (Neuengammer Kolloquien; 4); ISBN: 9783863311148, S. 145 – 150.
gerade erschienen:
Körber, Andreas: “Historical Thinking and Historical Competencies as Didactic Core Concepts”. In: Bjerg, Helle; Körber, Andreas; Lenz, Claudia; von Wrochem, Oliver (2014; Eds.): Teaching Historical Memories in an Intercultural Perspective. Concepts and Methods. Experiences and Results from the TeacMem Project. Berlin: Metropol (Neuengammer Kolloquien; 4); ISBN: 9783863311148, S. 69 – 96.
Bjerg, Helle; Körber, Andreas; Lenz, Claudia; von Wrochem, Oliver (2014; Eds.): Teaching Historical Memories in an Intercultural Perspective. Concepts and Methods. Experiences and Results from the TeacMem Project. Berlin: Metropol (Neuengammer Kolloquien; 4); ISBN: 9783863311148. Darin:
In dieser Woche ist eine Publikation erschienen, an welcher Mitglieder des Arbeitsbereichs beteiligt waren:
Vgl. auch: Blog-Eintrag im Blog des Projects TeacMem
Vom 19. bis 22. November 2012 fand an der Universität Hamburg und im Studienzentrum der KZ-Gedenkstätte Neuengamme die Abschlusskonferenz des trinationalen Projekts “TeacMem” statt.
Das Projekt brachte — koordiniert von Prof. Dr. Andreas Körber — Forscher, Lehrerausbilder(innen), Lehrer(innen), Gedenkstätten- und Museumspädagog(inn)en sowie Studierende aus Dänemark, Norwegen und Deutschland zusammen. In drei Seminaren/Konferenzen in Hamburg-Neuengamme (2010), Kopenhagen (2010) und Oslo (2012) erkundeten sie die jeweiligen geteilten (“shared” und “divided”) Erinnerungskulturen der Gastgeberländer zum Zweiten Weltkrieg und der gemeinsamen Geschichte und erarbeiteten Konzepte und Methoden für die Integration dieses Themengebits in die Lehrerbildung und den schulischen Geschichtsunterricht.
Auf der Abschlusskonferenz, zu der Lehrerausbilder(innen) und andere Multiplikatori(inn)en sowie Studierende aus allen drei Ländern anreisten, präsentierte das Projekt sowohl sein Vorgehen als auch einige Ergebnisse. Als externe Gäste präsentierten Joke van der Leeuw-Roord, Director von EUROCLIO (dem europäischen Geschichtslehrerverband), Cecilie Felicia Stokholm Banke vom Dänischen Institut für Internationale Studien (DIIS) und Prof. Dr. Kristin Skinstad van der Kooij vom Masterprogramm in Multikultureller und Internationaler Bildung des Oslo und Akershus University College zusätzliche Aspekte zum Gegenstand und Kontext des Projekts sowie zu seiner Evaluation.
Die Konferenz begann im Lichthof der Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Carl von Ossietzky mit der Präsentation des in Vorbereitung befindlichen Buches “Teaching Historical Memories in an Intercultural Perspective” (hgg. von Helle Bjerg, Andreas Körber, Claudia Lenz und Oliver von Wrochem),welches Beiträge zu den Erfahrungen der Projektteilnehmer in den drei internationalen und interprofessionellen Begegnungsseminaren sowie zu den Konzepten und Methoden für Lehrer(innen)bildung und schulischen Geschichtsunterricht versammelt, aber auch solche, in welchen Materialien zu besonders ertragreichen Themenfeldern präsentiert werden.
An diesem ersten Abend wurde auch ausschnittweise eine Videodokumentation über die drei Projektseminare präsentiert, welche das “look and feel”, aber auch die Dynamik der Diskussionen und Lernprozesse sichtbar machte. Auf der Grundlage dieses Videomaterials wird auch ein pädagoigisches Videokonzept entstehen. Gefolgt wurde diese Präsentation vom Hauptvortrag des Abends durch Cecilie Stokholm Banke über “Memory Culture as a Subject of History Didactics”.
Der zweite Tag bot den Teilnehmer(inn)en die Möglichkeit, die KZ-Gedenkstätte neuengamme kennenzulernen, war aber vor allem der Präsentation (und partiell dem Ausprobieren) und der Diskussion von Aktivitäten und Methoden des Projekts gewidmet. neben einer Präsentation der theoretischen Grundlagen des Projekts im Kompetenzmodell historischen Denkens nach “FUER Geschichtsbewusstsein” wurden hier sowohl solche Methoden vorgestellt, die der Initiierung von Selbstreflexion und von Diskussionsprozessen zu Beginn von Begegnungsseminaren und in Projekten dienen (Helle Bjerg und Katrine Vinther Scheibel), als auch solche, die die Re- und De-Konstruktion von Erinnerungen fördern (Claudia Lenz und Anne Talsnes. dieser Aspekt stand auch im Zentrum der Präsentation eines Lehrprogramms zu Denkmälern an die Zerstörung des norwegischen Fischerdorfs Telavag dort und im nahen Bergen, durch Jenny Heggvik und May Britt Wiel Haugland, das eine Reihe von instruktiven Fotos dieser Denkmäler enthält.
sowie solche für Aktivitäten im üblichen Klassen- oder Lerngruppenverband (Harald Syse). darüberhinaus wurden Konzepte und Materialien für die Thematisierung besonders ertragreicher Problemthemen wie etwa die Thematisierung von “Tätern” und die ambivalenten Erinnerungen im Zusammenhang mit der Rettungsaktion der Weißen Busse präsentiert (Oliver von Wrochem; Ulrike Jensen).
Der dritte Tag war der Reflexion und Evaluation gewidmet. Neben drei Studierenden, die ihre Sicht auf Erfahrungen mit den Lernprozessen aus einem der Begegnungsseminare reflektierten, thematisierten Joke van der Leeuw-Roord von EUROCLIO und Kristin Skinstad van der Kooij das Projekt, seine Prämissen und Konzepte wie auch die Ergebnisse zum einen aus der Sicht des Geschichtslernens zum Anderen aus derjenigen der interkulturellen Bildung. Beide Kommentatorinnen würdigten den Beitrag des Projekts zur Entwicklung eines wichtigen Feldes des Geschichtslernens und empfahlen die Übertragung seiner Prinzipien auf andere Themen der europäischen aber auch außereuropäischen Geschichte und Erinnerung.
Vgl. auch
Vom 20. bis 24. September 2012 fand in Hamburg die vom Arbeitsbereich Geschichtsdidaktik der Universität Hamburg gemeinsame mit dem Studienzentrum der KZ-Gedenkstätte Neuengamme und der Missionsakademie an der Universität Hamburg veranstaltete internationale Konferenz “Structures and Processes of Commemorating Cruelties in Academe and History Teaching: The commemoration of the Transatlantic Slave Trade and of the National Socialist Crimes in Comparison” statt.
Die Konferenz hatte zum Ziel, Strukturen und Formen des öffentlichen Erinnerns in Deutschland an die nationalsozialistischen Verbrechen in Deutschland und Europa und diejenigen der öffentlichen Präsentation der Geschichte des Transatlantischen Sklavenhandels (wie auch der einheimischen Sklaverei) in Ghana sowie die gegenwärtige Rolle dieser Themen in schulischem und universitärem Geschichtslernen zu vergleichen und auf die didaktischen Potentiale gerade auch des Vergleichs hin auszuloten. Dabei wurde auch die Bedeutung von Religion und religiösem Denken sowohl für die Sklaverei, den Sklavenhandel und ihre Überwindung als auch für historisches Denken und Erinnern sowie Lernen an diesem Gegenstand thematisiert.
Die Thematik der Tagung entsprach einer gemeinsamen Idee von Prof. Dr. Kofi Darkwah von der University od Education in Winneba/Ghana und Prof. Dr. Andreas Körber. Sie wurde in enger Zusammenarbeit mit Kolleginnen und Kollegen mehrerer Universitäten in Ghana von Jan Breitenstein, Doktorand der Geschichtsdidaktik an der Universität Hamburg, vorbereitet und organisiert.
Referenten der Tagung waren:
