I found Sanford Levinson’s Written In Stone to be frustrating at some times, challenging at others, and interesting throughout. I’m sure everyone shared my occasional frustration when Levinson drifts geographically from Boston to Hungary to Virginia to Texas and stylistically from historian to constitutional lawyer to public policy advisor with little explanation or justification given for these shifts. Levinson’s unannounced and unexplained segue into the role of constitutional lawyer in discussing the use of the Confederate flag is particularly challenging, because he adopts a strictly “legalese” line of reasoning to reach a conclusion—that states have the right to fly Confederate flags if they wish to do so—that he then denounces on moral grounds. This seems to be a risky path to take, given that an inattentive reader could easily misunderstand Levinson’s position. The potential for a deliberately out-of-context misquotation is also highly dangerous. Levinson might serve, therefore, as an example of how NOT to present ideas in public history where the audience might not recognize an academic thought experiment, and where interest groups of all kinds are ready to pounce on the smallest statement from an academic authority that seems to support their claims, honestly or otherwise.
Beyond these disadvantages, Written in Stone offers fascinating analyses of the role of monuments and public art in modern society. I especially liked the way Levinson treated monuments, like historic buildings, as objects that have complex histories. Monuments are constructed to commemorate past events, but reflect also the realities of the time in which they were built, and acquire new meanings as they age and social attitudes change. A good example is the Liberty Monument in New Orleans that has at various times been seen as a tribute to courage, a bald statement of racism, and an object for historic preservation. Another interesting comparison Levinson makes is between the European context in which monuments are usually constructed by governments and demolished, almost as a matter of course, when those governments are succeeded by new ones, and the American scene in which monuments often originate from private interests and are subject to reinterpretation more often than replacement.
This is a great analysis of Levinson's book. I also found it a little frustrating that he jumped around so much, but I did find his prose entertaining and thought-provoking more often than not. It was interesting to learn about monuments in other countries in comparison to our own, as we haven't encountered that type of analysis yet. Honestly, I was surprised at how often it seems monuments are destroyed (though in hindsight, I suppose I shouldn't have been). I like your point that in the States, we tend to reinterpret rather than destroy, as with the Liberty Monument. I wonder what has been destroyed over the years in America, and how we might interpret those memorials today.
ReplyDeleteI think Levinson also makes good points that monuments change in meaning with every generation because the view of history is always changing. I found his analysis on Europe's monuments in Eastern Europe facinating because public displays of history change with every regime change, unlike America where we still have monuments to Civil War veterans. I find this interesting because Eastern Europe's monuments seem to be funded by the government therefore presenting a strong political view, while the United States monuments tend to not hold a strong view because governments do not want to associate with any particular side. I also wonder what monuments in the United States have changed under the radar and if the US will progress to changing monuments more frequently.
ReplyDelete