When ‘memory work’ becomes ‘memory protest’: exploring ant/agonistic conflicts in memory initiatives

Research output: PhD ThesisPhD-Thesis - Research and graduation internal

97 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

This research examined the various conflicts that arise during negotiations regarding the installation of memorials in public spaces through the lens of Chantal Mouffe’s theory of agonistic pluralism. Specifically, it asked whether these negotiations were perceived as democratically legitimate by the involved actors and to what extent they offered opportunities for transforming antagonistic positions into agonistic ones. The guiding research questions were: (1) To what extent were participants able to shift from antagonistic to agonistic stances? (2) Under what conditions did this transformation occur? and (3) What role did ‘openness’ and ‘access’ in participation—the degree of input legitimacy—play in this transformation? To address these questions, three case studies were selected based on two criteria: the number of opportunities for all citizens to get involved at different stages of decision-making (i.e., scope of participation), and the opportunities citizens had to influence the decisions that could affect them (i.e., depth of participation). In the first case study—the Dutch Holocaust Memorial of Names, in Amsterdam, the Netherlands—citizens had few opportunities to get involved in decision-making and influence decisions (‘narrow scope’ and ‘shallow depth’). In the second case— Britain’s Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre, in London, the United Kingdom— opportunities for all citizens to get involved increased (‘wide scope’), but this did not translate into meaningful opportunities to influence decisions (‘shallow depth’). In the third case—the Memorial to Enslaved People, in Lisbon, Portugal—all citizens had opportunities to become involved (‘wide scope’) and influence major decisions (‘deep depth’). The analysis explored the extent to which all relevant actors were involved in the decision-making process, their capacity to exert influence, the nature of emerging conflicts, and how these were addressed (input-oriented legitimacy). The second phase involved identifying what values these actors held with respect to policy proposals to understand how they assessed the quality of decision-making outcomes (output-oriented legitimacy). The data were collected through field observations and semi-structured interviews with 45 key informants, and supplemented by data from newspaper articles, policy documents, letters, and other relevant documents. The findings showed that higher input legitimacy did not necessarily lead to agonism. Two key factors contributed to this outcome. First, some actors endowed memorials with ‘sacred values’ and considered any negotiation to be immoral. In such instances, the presence of ‘sacred values’ ensured persistent antagonism between the involved parties. The second factor preventing a shift from antagonism to agonism was the design of public participation. These mechanisms were not designed to foster respectful conflict but, rather, to neutralize opposition to proposals by providing only limited opportunities for involvement.
Original languageEnglish
QualificationPhD
Awarding Institution
  • Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Supervisors/Advisors
  • Burgers, Gert-Jan, Supervisor
  • Wagenaar, Pieter, Co-supervisor
Award date14 Jan 2025
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 14 Jan 2025

Keywords

  • public memorials
  • agonistic pluralism
  • sacred values
  • value conflicts
  • memory governance
  • public participation
  • heritage planning

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'When ‘memory work’ becomes ‘memory protest’: exploring ant/agonistic conflicts in memory initiatives'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this