The Future is not Written in Stone

                Levinson’s book “Written in Stone” was exactly the kind of book I would like to write someday. Essentially, Levinson is arguing that monuments play a large role in defining cultural identity and can be very problematic in this way. The problem being, when revolution or at very least radical social change occur, culture’s prefer to look forward than backward. The act of demolishing and rebuilding monuments to efface the evil old past and replace it with a progressive unified message is a modernist endeavor. Basically, Levinson has claimed that, although post-modern, Joe Friday “just the facts ma’am” history reporting is devoid of this kind of ability to shape cultural identities. In the first few pages of the book when describing the history of monumental demolition and construction of the Millennium Monument in Budapest Levinson states ‘ “blown to smithereens by a series of explosions spread over a fortnight in 1962.” “All That remains above ground is the statues vast concrete platform,” which apparently is “a favoured spot for skateboarders” Sic Transit Gloria Mundi.(pg 13)’  Latin for thus passes the glory of the world.

                The ways in which we control what is defined as public space is an effort to define public identity and this identity must always be looking forward. Levinson claims that although post-modernism has taken a hold over the history profession in which the representations of history are used simply for their value as records of the past, devoid of value judgments, ultimately public history is a modernist endeavor. His case in point being you will find no giant bronze statues of Hitler in Germany. Although many of these monuments are socially controversial (The Enola Gay, Virginia’s Confederate Monument Avenue) rather than effacing the past by removing or even repackaging through little signs that show that “The views represented here in no way represent the views of the state” we should be asking ourselves why the monument was erected and what can be learned about history in it’s presentation.

                Levinson’s book utilizes scholars like Marx and Foucault to study the cultural, and monetary basis behind the act of monument building as a social and political enterprise. When suggesting possible ways to circumvent the social unrest created by a Civil War monument in Texas, the final suggesting Levinson gives after the list of sign suggestion stating that the state does not endorse the views of the statue, he recommends a sign stating something about the nature of museums and monuments in their historical value for telling us about the culture that constructed them. This is exactly what I am always driving for in my writing and this project of Levinson’s will definitely be one I cite. Levinson’s conclusion is desirable because he states that rather than trying to present these monuments in a void with no value judgments, instead we have to take an active role, as public historians, in the construction of these social narratives, and the most useful form of this narrative is when it identifies the public past in hopes of creating a progressive and informed society.