Memorialising the dead is practiced universally, but why should we remember the fallen? This controversial question opened the inaugural lecture by Professor Gary Baines of the Department of History.
The reasons for remembering are seldom stated explicitly, but the assumption is that remembering is good, whereas forgetting is bad. Literature on memory, however does not necessarily agree. So why is collective remembrance regarded as commendable, whereas forgetting is condemned? Professor Baines attempted to interrogate this question.
Notably, in 2014, World War I centenary celebrations are being planned by the victorious nations. Germany and Russia are not celebrating – they have, says Professor Baines, a common vocabulary of loss in mourning their dead, but the political ramifications in the losing nations have resulted in very different narratives regarding the so-called Great War.
In Britain commemorative events geared towards remembrance are planned, with “Lest We Forget” and “Their Name Liveth Forever More” appearing on a variety of memorials, from those set in stone to sets of stamps. In South Africa, the 20th anniversary of the advent of democracy has been sober, with more attention given to looking for a way forward for our young democracy.
Professor Baines spoke about the work of memory which leads to justice, a political ideal or moral rule which must be valid in and of itself, not merely validated by being a commemoration. He noted that while this is an admirable model, post-apartheid South Africa is a long way from achieving this despite the amount of ‘memory work’ such as the TRC, which has taken place in the last 20 years.
Turning from case studies, he asked where this duty to remember stems from, citing the sacred duty of the Jews to remember God’s acts of intervention in history, and Christianity’s re-enactment of the Last Supper.
Such rituals are to be found also in the secular community, with philosophers and survivors expressing the view that the living owe a debt to the dead, to not let them be effaced from memory. To remember is to deny the perpetrators their ultimate victory.
However, is remembrance capable of doing more harm than good? Professor Baines referred to the collection of essays by David Rieff entitled Against Remembrance, where Rieff argues that collective memory serves to keep people separated rather than reconciled.
Bosnia and Ireland are examples of communities which have been mobilised and segregated by invoking long past battles and wars. Rieff proposed that over-zealous remembrance can rekindle age old antagonisms and sustain a sense of victimhood, creating a spiral of grievance which promotes antipathy rather than reconciliation. He does not advocate complete amnesia or the whitewashing of political crimes, but does not feel remembrance should be guaranteed - instead matters of remembering require judicious handling.
He concluded that remembering was not the only path to achieving social harmony.
By Jeannie Mckeown
Photo: Mike Dexter