Lindsay Larson and Dr. Susan Rugh, History

Yale historian Robin Winks writes, “We all know history is, simultaneously, three things: what actually happened, what historians choose to record, and what the people—and people, some people, these people, those people—believe to be true about the past.”¹  The study of “what people believe to be true about the past” is an emerging concern in the field of history. Although many historians question the legitimacy of studying public memory, it has become increasingly popular because historians, sociologists, and psychologists alike recognize that it largely defines the identity of individuals. In one of the most influential works on public memory, John Bodnar defines it as “a body of beliefs and ideas about the past that help a public or society understand both its past, present, and by implication, its future.”² Memorials offer a particularly potent arena in which to study how public memory is created and consequently influences identity.

In order to explore American memorials and their intersection with history, memory, and identity, I designed a survey to be conducted at various memorials. I hypothesized that there are various factors that lead to an individual’s response to a monument, including memory of the event, knowledge of the subject, design of the monument, and identification with those honored. I further claimed that of these factors, identification with the affected group has the greatest influence on an individual’s emotional response. My survey questions sought to address these issues by asking about the respondents’ feelings at the monument, opinion of the design, reason for visiting, knowledge of the monument’s subject, and personal connection to the monument.

I conducted the survey at three memorials. The Shaw Memorial located on Boston Common in Boston, Massachusetts honors Colonel Robert Gould Shaw, a Civil War officer, and the 54th Massachusetts Regiment, the first Black regiment from the North. This monument offered the opportunity to examine a memorial dedicated to a nineteenth century event. The Vietnam Veterans Memorial located on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. commemorates the most divisive, modern war in American history, while striving to foster reconciliation among individuals with differing moral and political viewpoints. It continues to be the most visited monument in the United States. The Oklahoma City National Memorial located in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma memorializes the1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, which was, at that time, the deadliest terrorist attack on U.S. soil. The memorial is a stunning example of visual symbolism with 168 stone and glass chairs representing each person killed in the attack.

Although my research supported my assertion that a personal connection to the event or identification with the affected party had the greatest impact on an individual’s emotional response, I simply was not able to get sufficient data to convincingly prove this. I particularly wish I could have found more willing respondents at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. Of the surveys that were completed, those that mentioned a personal connection to the event, usually a close friend or family member memorialized on the Wall, also discussed their emotional response in more detail. The results of the surveys at the Shaw Memorial also support my hypothesis because the respondents offered few emotional responses. No respondent indicated having a personal connection to this Civil War memorial. I believe this is due to the age of the event commemorated, which leaves few individuals with a direct personal connection.

I encountered two major obstacles while conducting this survey. First, finding respondents that were willing to complete the survey. People are naturally wary of being approached by individuals with clipboards and surveys. For every person that completed the survey, I had a number of people either decline to take it or refuse to talk to me at all. This limited the effectiveness of my research as well as jeopardizing the randomness of my sample. For example, if I saw a woman with children, I found myself less likely to approach her than if I saw an elderly man or woman. These difficulties are common to all survey research. An additional difficulty caused by the nature of memorials is that I felt somewhat hesitant to disturb individuals who seemed to be having a particularly moving experience at the monument. My hesitance to bother these visitors likely kept me from requesting surveys from some of those who perhaps would have had the strongest and most interesting responses to the survey questions.

The second major obstacle occurred only at the Oklahoma City National Memorial. I had distributed just a few surveys when a security guard told me that it was against their policy to allow such research to take place. Having previously sent a letter to the National Park Service, I knew that no such national policy existed. I also had not encountered any similar difficulties at the other monuments, which were also administered by the National Park Service. When I countered with these explanations, he simply said that the nature of this memorial was different than others and that I would not be allowed to continue. Although I questioned his authority to prohibit me from conducting my research, I felt that under the circumstances it would be better for me to comply with his request.

Though this research did produce the results I expected, the problems with gathering surveys has shaped my continuing research on memorials. I am currently writing my Honors Thesis on the memorialization of World War II Japanese-American internment camps. Because of the difficulties I encountered surveying individuals at monuments, I have decided to directly contact individuals who have a connection to the internment camps and who have visited these memorials. Personal contacts with internment camp survivors have led to additional contacts. Thus far, I have achieved greater success with this method because it has allowed me to understand the personal stories of these individuals and hence their reactions to the monuments. I have concluded that this is more appropriate to my purposes than a statistical study of survey data would have been. Despite the discouraging results or lack thereof from my survey research, it has been invaluable in guiding me to a more effective research method. 

__________________________________
¹Robin Winks, quoted in Sanford Levinson, Written in Stone: Public Monuments in Changing Societies (Durham and London: Duke University Press, 1998), 64.
² John Bodnar, Remaking America: Public Memory, Commemoration, and Patriotism in the Twentieth Century (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992), 15.