Nordisk Museologi 2004 • 1, s. 29–42 Memory as a social 29 and discursive practice in monuments A case study of the Tapio Rautavaara Monument. Tuuli Lähdesmäki Monuments are protagonists in many historical narratives. They “tell” fascinating stories of past times and past heroes and “advise” us to commemorate and reminisce. But who is actually doing the telling and to whom? How are the stories formed? In monuments the past and present, memory and history, meet in a complex way and form a structure of meanings reflecting the narratives and values of the so-called imagined community. Discursive and narrative practices play a crucial role in the formation and production of the meanings of monuments. Remembrance is the main function of monu- understood as a proper sculpture or a good ments. Without the memorial purpose the work of art. Concepts of good art may vary, whole concept of the monument loses its mean- but the idea of good art as the bearer of mem- ing. Monuments also serve many other func- ory in a proper way seems to be common. tions, such as ideological, political (national Several writers consider remembering as a and regional) and aesthetic. These other func- socially structured practice.1 This aspect of me- tions of monuments are closely connected to mory derives from the late nineteenth and ear- remembrance and commemoration. Ideologi- ly twentieth century sociological theories. Ac- cal and political functions especially are insep- cording to this view remembrance and com- arable from the memorial aspects of monu- memoration are formed in social interaction, ments: remembering is an ideological and po- in talk and performances. This aspect of the litical practice. Even the aesthetic is related to formation of memories is particularly interes- remembrance in monuments. To carry the ting in researching monuments, which are cle- memory well means that the form of the monu- ar examples of social and discursive meaning- ment must meet one´s concept of good art. It making processes. The focus lies not only in is easier to link the commemorative function questions: who is remembering, why and how to the monument if its form is accepted and does the commemoration occur, but also how Tuuli Lähdesmäki 30 a remembered person or event, a remembering Halbwachs. They saw that humans are always community and its identity are discursively social beings and they remember and forget produced. according to the memory frames and practices In this paper I will examine how memory is of the group to which they belong. These bound to monuments as a social and discur- frames are defined by a culture and contexts of sive practice. I will illuminate this practice cultural participation. Individuals are members through a case study of a monument to the of a variety of such contexts which is why they Finnish singer, athlete and actor Tapio Rauta- remember according to several social frames, vaara (1915–1979). His monument, called which emphasise different aspects of the ex- Dream of a Wanderer (fi. Kulkurin uni), was perienced reality.2 raised in the year 2000 in the residential area Seeing memory as this kind of social prac- of Oulunkylä in Helsinki, where Rautavaara tice still allowed some space for the concept of lived most of his life. In the monument the individual reminiscence. In fact, for a long time past and present, individual and collective, individual and collective were kept as separate memory and history, intertwine to form a concepts in research into memory.3 In many discursive texture. texts this separation is still maintained. In recent studies of memory in the field of Problematising individual cultural psychology many writers have located and collective memory memory in culture and stressed memory as a cultural practice.4 In this cultural understan- In projects to erect monuments the general ding of memory, the separation of the indivi- public or a specific community is encouraged dual or personal memory and the collective to recall a past event or a person. Many news- memory is seen as unnecessary. Considering paper articles are written during such projects the manifold layers of the cultural fabric that about the importance of the memory and the weaves together individual, group and society, meaning of elevating the person or event from the idea and category of an isolated and auton- oblivion into the minds of members of the omous individual becomes meaningless, as community. In these texts those who are rais- Jens Brockmeier writes.5 Understanding the ing the monument urge the public to engage individual and collective memory as a whole in individual commemoration, to meet the means that the earlier categories of individual monument with subjective reminiscences and and collective, private and public, are now seen to relate it to their personal memories of the in continuous interaction, interplay and mu- particular person or event. What does indi- tual dependence, fusion and unity. Remembe- vidual reminiscing mean in terms of monu- ring and forgetting are also understood as inter- ments? If remembering is considered a social dependent features of one solid phenomenon. practice, the idea of the ‘individual memory’ Seeing forgetting as being closely connected to and ‘subjective commemoration’ will also have remembering is not a radically new aspect, but some sort of social content. several writers in recent years have emphasised The social understanding of individual the importance of forgetting in memory- memory was formulated as early as in the socio- making. Forgetting and modifying a given logical texts of Emil Durkheim and Maurice memory’s intention or implication is as much Memory as a social and discursive practice in monuments a part of memory-making as is remembering.6 beliefs, ideas and the past.12 The concept of 31 If we reject concepts of the individual and popular memory has been used by oral histori- collective memory, what should we then call ans to refer to commonly held representations the practise of reminiscence? In texts different found in the oral accounts people give of past concepts seem to be used in explaining mem- events, traditions, customs and social prac- ory practice. Different concepts are used to de- tices.13 These various concepts of memory form scribe similar acts but on the other hand, sim- dialogical relationships. The formation of the ilar concepts might be given different meanings concepts also has a historical dimension. according to the research aspect. Brockmeier, In this paper I understand memory as the who emphasises the interplay of the individu- concept of cultural memory, referring to the al and the collective in memory-making, uses complex structure of the memory-making pro- a concept of cultural memory.7 Another con- cess. In monuments both aspects of memory, cept, which refers to a combiniation of the in- individual and collective, seem to be present dividual and the collective, is the concept of simultaneously and are intertwined so tightly social memory, as used e.g. by Peter Burke.8 that it is difficult to distinguish and separate However, the concept of social memory is them. The concept of cultural memory not sometimes used in opposition to individual only mixes the traditional categories of mem- memory (e.g. in some of Brockmeier’s texts).9 ory, it also emphasises a mixture of experienc- Concepts of historical memory and collective es of the past and present. Brockmeier has de- memory explain memory more clearly as the scribed memory as a movement within a cul- opposite of individual or personal memory. The tural discourse that continuously combines and concept of collective memory was formulated fuses the now and then, the here and there.14 by Durkheim and as Adrian Forty writes Seeing the past and present in a changing in- “since Durkheim […] there has been a tenden- terplay in the memory-making process is a cy to confuse the memory of the individual fruitful starting point when observing monu- with the memory of societies“.10 It seems that ments. The meaning-making of monuments the idea of separate categories of individual and combines: historical and fictive stories (texts collective remembering and forgetting exist or pictures etc.), which have been told about a strongly, especially in historians´ studies of remembered person or event, stories that com- memory.11 Concepts of a public memory and ment or interpret these historical or fictive sto- a popular memory are more difficult to fit into ries, memories of people who experienced the a juxtaposition of individual and collective or event themselves or met the deceased person- into the combining concept of cultural mem- ally, and memories which have been formed ory. For John Bodnar the public memory from the bases of all of these written or oral emerges from the intersection of official and stories. Memories transform easily into stories vernacular cultural expressions. It is understood and stories feed memories. as a body of beliefs and ideas about the past If the memory and remembering is located and as a site of contest between competing in culture, the observation of this phenomenon voices, a site that is created in a variety of pub- can be carried out by and through other cul- lic forums, where various parties representing tural practices: narrative and discourse.15 Nar- various parts of society exchange views about rative is crucial among memory practices: me- Tuuli Lähdesmäki 32 mory practices are narrative practices, as Brock- Remembering a Finnish meier emphasises.16 In researching monuments “javelin and troubadour hero“ it is clear that meanings do not just originate and a “legend of sports from the monument as a sculpture: meanings and entertainer“21 are produced in texts, in narratives and dis- courses. If the memory is understood as a nar- The faster Western societies change in late and rative practice, it can be said that texts and dis- post-modern times and traditions, religion and courses influence how the past is remembered.