Memory, Space and Modernity in Berlin and Shanghai
similar aspiration of «re-modernizing» themselves. In this sense, the current experience of Shanghai and Berlin informs many of the features of urban modernity in the post-Cold-War era. The book unfolds the complexity of the urban space per se as highly revealing cultural texts. Also this project doesn’t examine the spatial changes in chronological terms, but rather takes the present moment as the temporal standing point of this research. By comparing the memory discourse related to these spatial changes, the book poses the question of how modernity is understood in the matrix of local, national and global power struggles.
Part I. Contested National Memories: Monument, Myth-Making, and Modernity
Part I Contested National Memories: Monument, Myth-Making, and Modernity Representing the essence of the national myth, the official commemo- rative constructions (i.e., monuments, memorials, archives, museums, etc.) of today are erected primarily by main political powers in a nation- state to assert national identity. As Eric Hobsbawm (1990) and Benedict Anderson (1991) contend, the nation-state is a relatively recent inven- tion in human history and is deeply connected with the discourse on modernity (Hobsbawm 14). Three points can illustrate the interrelations between monuments and modernity. First, monuments play an impor- tant role in establishing, sustaining, consolidating, and legitimatizing the creation of the national narrative. Nations are made up, though not necessarily completely falsiﬁed, by the common imagination of the col- lective and continuous existence of a geographical territory. “The mate- rial existence of “certain artifacts and events – such as dead bodies, gravesites, and burial ceremonies – have unique symbolic power because they invoke a sense of timelessness, awe, fear, and uncertainty” (Verdery 23–53). And in turn, “The power to transcend time, to bring historical events and personalities into the present, makes such objects especially effective in mobilizing national movements” (Forest and Johnson 526). Second, as spatial representation in memory of a historical happen- ing, a monument invokes the core contradiction between modernity and its temporality. Modern monuments belong to the “intentional commem- orative value” according to Alois Riegl’s categorization (Riegl 38). Unlike age-value and historical value that enable time work on spatial meaning, “(i)ntentional commemorative value aims to...
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.
Do you have any questions? Contact us.Or login to access all content.