Monuments: The Vases for Our Identities.

National identity and nationalism are cultural objects created by the prevailing group or groups to legitimize the status quo and/or unite a marginalized group together against a dominant group. Furthermore, nationalism is not single entity but a complex mixture of various layers. There is nationalism as a political doctrine (the Westphalia system), as a cultural ideal (evoking the feeling of brotherhood), as a moral ideal (justifying sacrifice and violence), and civic nationalism (creating a separation between us and them). The role nationalism plays in a person’s identity was described by Michael Ignatieff:

"Statelessness is a state of mind, and it is asking to homelessness. This is what a nationalist understands: a people can become completely human, completely themselves, only when they have a place of their own."

Though not discussed directly in today’s readings (but in Anderson’s Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism) is the relationship between violence /death and nationalism. For some, national identity grew out of death (i.e. war or ethnic genocide). It is nationalism that makes people feel they are part of a group, a group that can protect them from external threats of violence. In fact, this protection is created partially by the logic of escalated ferocity, where creating the fear in others about your potential violence will protect you (similar to the idea of deterrence in the nuclear non-proliferation regime). This violent nationalism is the foundation used by nation states and ethnic groups alike to establish and centralize their power and influence over others. All of these need to be kept alive in the citizen’s memory, thus monuments are used to remind people of these sufferings.

Monuments are the embodiment of our national and international identity. A monument can range from a statue, to a building, or to a void. If a place is to be called a monument will depend on the power and meaning people put into it; they represent our identity only as far as one puts their identity into these places. These sites allow people to be linked together with a common emotion towards history; they allow people to feel a sense of belonging. Monuments essentially bring into reality Anderson’s imagined community just as censuses, maps, and museums did. As Anderson stated, the state that build them are seen as the protector of national identity (p181).

The articles for this week discussed a lot about the national. But, it seems relevant in contemporary times to also examine the international. This assumed naturally that there is an international identity or at least one in the process of forming. Upon reflection, it seems that a person’s international identity would tied tightly to one’s national identity. Monuments that represent the international will bring nationalism in tow (especially as there are very few places on the globe that is not national territory rather international land). In essence, one looks at international identity through the lens on their national identity. For example: international identity could only be connected to say the United Nations by the national identity allowed to it. Does this mean that international identity can exist without national identity? Or, are we seeing a transition in process where the international is slowly separating itself into self-sufficiency? Who will be the builders and protectors of this identity? Will this surface only after a true world-wide war occurs and a monument is built to sanctify the dead?

References:
Anderson Benedict. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. Verso, 1983,
Ignatieff, Michael. Blood and Belonging: Journeys into the New Nationalism. n.d. 215.
Anderson Benedict. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. Verso, 1983,