Written in Stone Review

In Sanford Levinson's book, Written in Stone: Public Monuments in Changing Societies, the significance of public monuments are examined within the context of public and collective memory. He examines several controversial monuments, especially in the South, as a way to explore the different ways in which society deals with public space. Although he ultimately focuses on the American South, Levinson begins by looking at monuments in Eastern Europe, Nicaragua, and Zimbabwe. These global examples really bolster his historical argument that Southern monuments are much more controversial than originally thought. In addition to monuments, Levinson also sees objects such as stamps, inscriptions, and flags as symbols of a national identity and collective memory.

One of the more interesting points that Levinson makes is that often societies who suffer extreme regime changes often have an easier time deciding how to treat their public monuments than a society, such as the United States, that has, for the most part, experience a subtle culture change over decades of time. Within Germany, there are no monuments and statues dedicated to Hitler and SS members and this is understood by everyone. In the Soviet Union, statues of Lenin and other communist are removed with controversy. These acts represent a reaction to the “bad spouse” idea that Levinson mentions at the end of the book. In America, however, historical culture had changed a much more subtle rate, resulting in the graying of American culture. Monuments to Confederate heroes are still revered by many Southerners and therefore their removal or destruction would be hotly contested. I had never previously viewed this difference although I had unconsciously agreed with it my entire life. As Levinson says, the difference lies in the way collective memory is developed and how the “couple” parted ways.

I think it is also important to note that Levinson's career as a lawyer makes a difference in how he views public monuments. He is careful to make it clear that he believes in a person's right to wave the Confederate flag or believe in Confederate heroes but that it should not be within the public sphere. Although he agrees that Federal courts do not have the rights to order State governments to remove Confederate flags from State Capitols, he still believes that the public arena should not be a place of exclusion and biased towards one religion or one political viewpoint. Although I think he made very good points and made astute observations, I, as a Southerner, had to keep reminding myself that he was not explicitly attacking the South. As an anthropology major in undergraduate, I was constantly reminded about the language I used when talking about a culture and the importance of “loaded” vs. “neutral” words. I feel like Levinson's words were quite loaded and could end up causing some of his readers to be defensive and therefore not concentrate on his essential argument, that monuments and other memorial objects reflect and legitimize the public historical memory. This is just a minor concern however and has the complete possibility of being purely personal.