TRAGEDY AND MEMORY
In the preface to Electronic Monuments, Gregory Ulmer makes the claim that memory and tragedy are linked, saying, "The links between catastrophe and memory are biological, of course, but also cultural." (x). Ulmer then goes on to make direct reference to the myth of Simonides, the ancient Greek poet who is said to have created mnemotechniques as a result of a tragedy wherein everyone perished at a dinner party that the poet attended by being crushed under the very building that housed the party (except for him, of course). Simonides, so the myth goes, was able to remember every single guest of the dinner party by his or her respective locations around the dinner table. Ulmer focuses on the 9/11 terrorist attacks to show how memory is also a collective and cultural event. He features an exert from a tribute from Newsweek Magazine that it published in the fall immediately following the events of 9/11. That day is one that is permanently etched in the minds of not only millions of Americans, but countless other people across the world. It is what Virilio calls a "general accident," that is, an accident that is said to happen everywhere around the world at once due to the immediate spread of information via the Internet.
Tragedy does, indeed, facilitate memory. I, like many others, remember exactly what I was doing on September 11, 2001. Not only was it my 21st birthday, but I was a young corporal in the United States Marine Corps. My battalion was at the rifle range fulfilling our annual requirement for rifle marksmanship. When the cease fire was given, we were instructed to report back to our individual platoon leaders; once we did so, we were informed of the events that had transpired that morning. I remember being told that we'd better perform better than we ever had on the rifle range because we would soon be going to war. You can not know how it feels to be told those words unless you're in the military. The implications of a terrorist attack on American soil are, I'd argue, much more immediately profound for members of the armed forces, who are sworn to defend our country from all threats both foreign and domestic. The feeling across Camp LeJeune in the aftermath of the attacks was one of shock, sadness, and burning indignation. The nation at large came together to mourn, honor our fallen, and to rebuild. Ulmer asked of the tragedy, "Will it provoke a turn to the institution of education as part of its collective response to understanding the 9/11 disaster?" By and large, I would have to say that has not been the case. Even as Ulmer promoted EmerAgency as the "new consultancy," the fifth estate after the three branches of the government and the media, humanities started their decline, a trend which has not improved in the 6 years since Electronic Monuments was published.
ELECTRONIC MONUMENTS
Ulmer covers the 9/11 tragedy, Virilio's concept of the internet as a medium that trivializes tragegies, and MEmorials and (electronic) monuments. It seems that he is saying that a large part of who we are both individually and culturally, is revealed in our processes for mourning and/or guilt. By the very act of building a monument, either physical or electronic, we are in some way mourning--remember that or which is lost to us. Ulmer even says as much when he states that, "A MEmorial witnesses (monitors) a disaster in progress...The MEmorial tests a modality (testimony) that has been heavily theorized in cultural studies." (xxvii). In the opening to chapter 1, he mentions the recent phenomenon of "reality tours," where the tourists visit sites that put them face to face with the harsh realities of our world rather than the traditional purpose of a vacation, which is to get away from reality.
Are electronic monuments and MEmorials just a way of gloryfying/trivialzing tragedy? Ulmer doesn't think so, and I would agree. What sets an electronic monument apart from a physical monument is that the physical monument is static; it does not allow for individual mourning (i.e. expression). Ulmer says of mourning, "In psychoanalytic terms, "mourning" refers to the process by which the person is constituted as a distinctly separate self, yet part of the larger whole of society." (13). Electronic monuments, then, allow individual mourning in the way that traditional monuments can not, however, this individual monument is situated within the larger public sphere of the interenet, therefore, electronic memorials bestow an individual and collective benefit upon those that create them. MEmorials are peripherals that are attached to existing monuments (48), so there is the abilitiy for all pre-exisiting and future monuments to become appropriated for any individual's sake.
So monuments and memorials in general are meant to commemorate and celebrate. However, while the internet facilitates the sharing of said monuments and memorials, it also facilitates a perversion of them. I came across this website,
http://vigilantcitizen.com/sinistersites/top-5-worst-911-memorials/, that exists not to commemorate and honor those physical monuments built in honor of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, but to denigrate them for lack of aesthetics and/or consideration. In a way, this site functions as an anti-electronic monument. This is not necessarily a bad thing, since it is still a means of personal expression, but I do think that this is the kind of thing that Virilio would take issue with as it seems to validate his opinion that the internet trivializes tragedies.
 |
| Simonides escaping tragedy. |
Tragedy does, indeed, facilitate memory. I, like many others, remember exactly what I was doing on September 11, 2001. Not only was it my 21st birthday, but I was a young corporal in the United States Marine Corps. My battalion was at the rifle range fulfilling our annual requirement for rifle marksmanship. When the cease fire was given, we were instructed to report back to our individual platoon leaders; once we did so, we were informed of the events that had transpired that morning. I remember being told that we'd better perform better than we ever had on the rifle range because we would soon be going to war. You can not know how it feels to be told those words unless you're in the military. The implications of a terrorist attack on American soil are, I'd argue, much more immediately profound for members of the armed forces, who are sworn to defend our country from all threats both foreign and domestic. The feeling across Camp LeJeune in the aftermath of the attacks was one of shock, sadness, and burning indignation. The nation at large came together to mourn, honor our fallen, and to rebuild. Ulmer asked of the tragedy, "Will it provoke a turn to the institution of education as part of its collective response to understanding the 9/11 disaster?" By and large, I would have to say that has not been the case. Even as Ulmer promoted EmerAgency as the "new consultancy," the fifth estate after the three branches of the government and the media, humanities started their decline, a trend which has not improved in the 6 years since Electronic Monuments was published.
ELECTRONIC MONUMENTS
Ulmer covers the 9/11 tragedy, Virilio's concept of the internet as a medium that trivializes tragegies, and MEmorials and (electronic) monuments. It seems that he is saying that a large part of who we are both individually and culturally, is revealed in our processes for mourning and/or guilt. By the very act of building a monument, either physical or electronic, we are in some way mourning--remember that or which is lost to us. Ulmer even says as much when he states that, "A MEmorial witnesses (monitors) a disaster in progress...The MEmorial tests a modality (testimony) that has been heavily theorized in cultural studies." (xxvii). In the opening to chapter 1, he mentions the recent phenomenon of "reality tours," where the tourists visit sites that put them face to face with the harsh realities of our world rather than the traditional purpose of a vacation, which is to get away from reality. Are electronic monuments and MEmorials just a way of gloryfying/trivialzing tragedy? Ulmer doesn't think so, and I would agree. What sets an electronic monument apart from a physical monument is that the physical monument is static; it does not allow for individual mourning (i.e. expression). Ulmer says of mourning, "In psychoanalytic terms, "mourning" refers to the process by which the person is constituted as a distinctly separate self, yet part of the larger whole of society." (13). Electronic monuments, then, allow individual mourning in the way that traditional monuments can not, however, this individual monument is situated within the larger public sphere of the interenet, therefore, electronic memorials bestow an individual and collective benefit upon those that create them. MEmorials are peripherals that are attached to existing monuments (48), so there is the abilitiy for all pre-exisiting and future monuments to become appropriated for any individual's sake.
So monuments and memorials in general are meant to commemorate and celebrate. However, while the internet facilitates the sharing of said monuments and memorials, it also facilitates a perversion of them. I came across this website,
http://vigilantcitizen.com/sinistersites/top-5-worst-911-memorials/, that exists not to commemorate and honor those physical monuments built in honor of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, but to denigrate them for lack of aesthetics and/or consideration. In a way, this site functions as an anti-electronic monument. This is not necessarily a bad thing, since it is still a means of personal expression, but I do think that this is the kind of thing that Virilio would take issue with as it seems to validate his opinion that the internet trivializes tragedies.
questions:
1) Ulmer said in one of his lectures, "If one does not apply grammatology as one applies sunscreen, one's signifier will undoubtedly get burned. And forget about the signified—that'll be toast, too." While those of us in academia can see the value in this, is this statement true enough to apply to society at large?
2) Ulmer, in his quest to refute the concerns of Virilio, promotes Electronic Monumentality and MEmorials as the means by which the internet becomes a publics sphere to commemorate who we are individually and collectively. Given your experiences with the Internet, would you say you are more inclined to agree with Ulmer or Virilio?
3) How do you think Ulmer would respond to the website that serves as a public denouncement of memorials? Do you think the term I used, anti-electronic monument, is an apt one in regards to the website?
pictures:
1) Ulmer said in one of his lectures, "If one does not apply grammatology as one applies sunscreen, one's signifier will undoubtedly get burned. And forget about the signified—that'll be toast, too." While those of us in academia can see the value in this, is this statement true enough to apply to society at large?
2) Ulmer, in his quest to refute the concerns of Virilio, promotes Electronic Monumentality and MEmorials as the means by which the internet becomes a publics sphere to commemorate who we are individually and collectively. Given your experiences with the Internet, would you say you are more inclined to agree with Ulmer or Virilio?
3) How do you think Ulmer would respond to the website that serves as a public denouncement of memorials? Do you think the term I used, anti-electronic monument, is an apt one in regards to the website?
pictures:
No comments:
Post a Comment