Making Memory Space: Recollection and Reconciliation in Post ...

Museums and memorials, as physical embodiments of collective memory, and representatives of civic
institutions are surely culpable in the establishment and maintenance of specific memory narratives.
By making tangible the intangible and providing physical form to the nebulous past, memory space
proffers a solid perspective on the past, one that cannot be readily eradicated. 25
Yet, the mercurial nature of memory calls into question the reliability of history which is often
presented as a definitive version of the past. Many theorists have contended with the differing notions
of memory and history. Pierre Nora defines memory as existing in an ongoing state of change,
vulnerable to remembering and forgetting and history as a sanctioned representation of the past, a
discourse, which distrusts the fluidity of memory. He asserts that a form of constructed history has
replaced actual recollection. Nora posits a dual concept of ‘lieux de mémoire’ wherein a sense of the
past is constructed from a specific entity and the ‘milieux de mémoire’, wherein the past emerges from
lived history and social practice. 26 Jonathan Crewe highlights the need to distinguish between cultural
memory and history, suggesting that one is often substituted for the other over time resulting in a
murky interchange that allows for the corruption of memory or authoritative historical narratives. 27
Distinctions between memory and history become increasingly difficult to determine because of the
resemblance, overlapping and intersection between the two. History and memory are considered to be
mutually exclusive when in fact, the production of one often informs the other. Architecture contributes
to this dissolution through the authoritative nature of built form that often adds to a specific vision of
the world, or a set of values, but does so discretely. Memory space is intended to allow for
recollection, but the concretised architectural form often presents an authoritative perspective on the
past.
In countries or situations where memory of the past is still active in the present, the character and form
of the memory often contribute to revised visions of self. The notion that this recollection can be
influenced or modelled according to political aims or social desires reveals the power inherent in
concepts of memory. Such ideas form the basis for the social construction of memory as defined by
Eric Hobsbawm and Terrance Ranger, who suggest that politics manipulates the past to invent
traditions that serve its interest. 28 They argue that the past becomes a vehicle to vindicate actions of
the present or future. This is shown to be evident in recent examples, such as the attacks on the Twin
Towers of Manhattan. The resulting political events illustrate the extent to which collective memory
can be utilised to facilitate political aims and to justify action based on a shared sense of the past. In
some ways this recollection becomes a mandate for revising the status quo, the result of which can
25 The notion that memory space is immutable and therefore uncontestable is a contentious one, that is discussed at some
length through the course of this writing. It may also be argued that precisely because of its very materiality and physicality
monuments are accessible and open to challenge and discussion. This is not without complexity and is discussed in the
following chapter.
26 Pierre Nora, Realms of Memory (New York: Columbia University Press, 1998).
27 Jonathan Crewe, ‘Recalling Adamastor: Literature as Cultural Memory in “white” South Africa’, in Mieke Bal, Jonathan Crewe,
and Leo Spitzer (eds.), Acts of Memory: Cultural Recall in the Present (Hanover and London: University Press of New England,
1999), p.76.
28 Eric Hobsbawm and Terrance Ranger (eds.), The Invention of Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983).
16