“The Predicament of Aftermath” : Oklahoma City and September 11

Abstract

Memorial response in the wake of violence is an expression of resilience—whether marking “everyday” acts of murder, or more dramatic outbreaks of terrorism or war. Particularly in an age of mass death, when individuals become statistics signifying the anonymous death of millions, such response is about more than providing a tranquil sacred space for rituals of mourning. It is a protest, a way of saying, “We will not let these dead become faceless and forgotten. This memorial exists to keep their names, faces, stories in our memories.” Increasingly, memorial expression has become an immediate language of engagement, not just a language of commemoration. This is clearly evident in the rise of a new generation of activist memorial environments, in particular the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum and the Oklahoma City National Memorial, consciously modeled after the Holocaust Museum. Both include memorial space, museum exhibition space, archival space, educational space, and outreach programs, promoting activist agendas designed to spark civic energies to combat anti- Semitism, terrorism, and other ills of modernity. Ideally, these institutions are sites of conscience on the civic landscape. Their role is to immerse visitors in a compelling and often horrific story, and transform them into actively engaged citizens. The terrorist attacks in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995, and in New York on September 11, 2001, brought communities together and at the same time tore them apart. Whether represented in thousands of letters suggesting appropriate memorial forms, in the creation of so called spontaneous memorials—so popular now that they represent “planned spontaneity” and perhaps even memorial cliché—or in the formation of formal memorial processes, memorial expression helps people to transform bereavement, anger, fear, and resolve into an active communal grief that mournfully celebrates ongoing life, albeit transformed. There is instability in memorial expression, however. The fragility of memory is never more apparent than when memorials are envisioned. Memorial expression tasks creators to ensure remembrance through significant memorial forms, since the danger of forgetfulness, even oblivion, is enduring. There is instability as well in the rhetoric of civic resilience, which bravely proclaims that just as those murdered will be intensely remembered through memorials, the cityscape will be intensely remembered through acts of civic renewal.