Memorializing the Victims of Terrorism

Classifying Memorials (cont'd)

Spontaneous Memorials

Recent research on spontaneous memorials depicts the act as a relatively recent and growing phenomenon (Santino 2006; Doss 2006; Tay 2008). According to these researchers, spontaneous memorials can properly be dubbed one of the foremost forms of memorializing.  Though the definition may appear self-explanatory, Doss (2006) notes that the term, "spontaneous memorial" is in some ways deceptive. According to Doss, spontaneous memorials are, in actuality, highly orchestrated forms of public mourning whose spontaneity lies in their quick use as responses to unexpected tragedy. They often take shape in a variety of ways; for example, they may be in the form of roadside memorials, memorial walls, or public shrines (Santino 2006; Thomas 2006).  According to researchers, spontaneous memorials serve several purposes. First, they function to memorialize the victims of tragic events. Second, they provide people with the opportunity to address social issues and problems, which in turn politicizes them (Santino 2006). Researchers claim that spontaneous memorials are political in the sense that they can be used to present citizen commentary regarding policies implemented by governments (Yocom 2006), while governmental responses to such memorials can serve as an affirmation of governmental power over the public domain or the recognition of public concerns (Thomas 2006). However, the political focus during spontaneous memorialization processes are primarily on the critique of government action or inaction regarding the event that has spurred need for spontaneous memorialization in the first place (Margry and Sanchez-Carretero 2007).  International examples provide insight on the practical and socio-political aspects of spontaneous memorials.

Spontaneous memorials are among the foremost ways American victims of recent terrorist events have been memorialized. In the days following the September 11 attacks, the areas surrounding the World Trade Center and Pentagon building where the attacks occurred instantly became places of gathering for the public to pay their respects to the victims. At these sites, people left objects and performed various rituals for the victims. Personalized objects displayed at the sites included photos and picture frames, while less personalized objects included flowers, teddy bears and candles, to name a few (Greenspan 2003). The sites were also decorated with poems and comments on and around previously erected national monuments, especially in the case of the World Trade Center site. However, in the days following the initial creation of the spontaneous memorials at Union Station in New York, the Department of Parks is said to have removed the comments and messages that were scrawled on the ground and monuments. As well, a year after people displayed objects and wrote comments about the attacks and victims at a church near the site of attack, residents requested that these be removed. 

One of the issues raised by this example is the timely removal of spontaneous memorials from publicly occupied spaces.  Some research that has been done on roadside memorials has addressed this critical issue. Though not often associated with memorials for victims of terrorism, roadside memorials are used to memorialize victims of tragedies, such as car accidents. Scholars have classified them as a particular form of spontaneous memorialization (Santino 2006). In their research on roadside memorials in the United States, Collins and Rhine (2003) present several areas of contention regarding this form of memorialization. According to the authors, maintenance, visual blight, and safety are among some keys issues that have frustrated policy makers trying to appease the people that erect these memorials and the general public subject to their presence within their neighbourhoods.  To this list, might also be added the possible archival value of artefacts forming the spontaneous memorial (Treasury Board of Canada 2008).

To summarize, there are several conclusions that can be drawn from the literature on spontaneous memorials. First, spontaneous memorials can be used to inform national or official memorials.  According to Senie (2006), as a form of democratic action, spontaneous memorials carry important personal responses and public commentary that should be considered in the memorialization process. Given the fact that national memorials are designed to honour victims while promoting healing within society, spontaneous memorials can offer the opportunity to identify some of the sentiments citizens may want reflected through national memorials. However, the use of spontaneous memorials as an approach toward fostering the healing of victims, their families and the general public following a terrorist event may also require the consideration of some issues associated with their erection in public places. Concerns about public safety, maintenance (especially in the case of roadside memorials and shrines) and the public response towards spontaneous memorials are some examples of issues that may benefit from some consideration regarding this particular memorialization process.

Considerations

Overall, the memorialization of victims of terrorism is receiving growing attention from scholars, governments and policy makers. Research has focused on the experiences and needs of victims, and specific issues such as victim compensation (Staiger et al. 2008; Shichor 2007).  Although research on memorializing victims of terrorism can be described as burgeoning, the literature that currently exists has not addressed the Canadian context. As such, research relevant to the needs of Canadian victims of terrorism and their families may be needed in order to effectively gauge the ways in which these victims can be memorialized.  Particular areas of focus include documenting the past and present ways Canadian victims of terrorism have been memorialized, the needs of victims’ families, as well as a detailed account of the memorialization process in Canada.

Despite the sparse Canadian content regarding memorializing the victims of terrorism, the little that does exist, when coupled with the international instances of memorialization can inform policies about the ways to memorialize Canadian victims of terrorism. A key issue appears to be the varied meaning attached to memorials.  As illustrated throughout this report, memorials, irrespective of their form, convey implicit and explicit meanings about the people and society in which they exist. More importantly, these potential meanings can have significant implications for victims of terrorism and their families, but also for the general public. As such, identifying the meanings conveyed within memorials for victims of terrorism, particularly implicit and obscure meanings, is central to creating memorials that honour the memory of victims while reducing the potential for re-victimization through memorials. Another way to decipher implicit meanings and messages present within memorials may be to examine the politics associated with particular memorials processes.  As scholars have argued, memorializing is a highly political issue (Hite 2007; Hoskins 2008). When considering particular memorial schemes, it may be helpful to also address the objectives governing the creation of the schemes in question and the overall objectives of the various stakeholders involved in the process.  

Another area for consideration is the role victims and victims’ families can play in the memorialization process. First, addressing the role of victims and their families in the memorialization process is significant because it provides victims and their families with the opportunity to voice their concerns regarding memorials. Second, it supports the call for a more inclusive approach toward addressing the memorialization needs of victims (Bloomfield 1998). This is especially critical given the ethnic, religious, and cultural diversity of Canada’s population (Fleras and Elliot 2002).

In terms of groups and organizations, research shows that they currently occupy a critical space in the memorialization process (Couch et al. 2008). As scholars have noted, victims’ groups and organizations have had and will continue to have a real influence in the ways victims of terrorism and other terrorist type events are memorialized.  As such, careful consideration regarding the ways in which groups and organizations can effectively contribute toward memorializing victims of terrorism may be particularly beneficial. 

Finally, logistical issues such as the location of a memorial, the timeline of a memorial project, and the costs and maintenance of memorial sites are all key areas for consideration. Although primarily technical, it is important to note that these issues relate to and are affected by the other identified issues associated with memorializing the victims of terrorism.

Despite the limited scholarship produced on the processes and issues associated with memorializing Canadian victims of terrorism, this review has demonstrated that there are critical challenges to address when considering memorialization as a viable option for Canadian victims of terrorism. By utilizing current research on memorials developed for victims of terrorism, and by exploring various cases of terrorist-type events, this report has gauged a number of policy related needs that may contribute to the realization of a grounded framework for memorializing victims of terrorism.  No one issue is particularly paramount, as each is vital to the memorialization process. However, it can be argued that the voices and needs of victims, their families, and the general public are all critical components necessary in the memorialization process.  Moreover, identifying the extent to which each group should feature in the memorialization process is a task that may require further research based on the Canadian context, as well as careful consideration in policy.