Joining the Conversation: The Rhetorical Work of National Monuments

The 9/11 Memorial and Museum

Juliana Sebben
Wilson-Clasby
English Comp II: 180
17 November 2016

Sebben
1

When the twin towers collapsed on September 11, 2001, the echoes of their
crash were heard around the world. The United States, widely considered one of the
most powerful countries, was under attack by the Islamic terrorist group, Al-Qaeda,
which hoped that their assault would encourage the removal of US troops from middleeastern territories and inspire other extremist revolutionaries to join their efforts. Their
attack showcased American susceptibility to man-made disaster and, in the wake of
death and destruction, another issue arose - how could the nation respond to such
catastrophe? Five scholars examine the ways in which America has attempted to
commemorate the 9/11 disaster and how the presence of the 9/11 memorial and
museum work rhetorically to weave a historical narrative.
Though their academic backgrounds vary and their personal experiences with
9/11 vastly differ, scholars Stubblefield, Simpson, Haskins, Bleiker, and Aronson are
alike in that they all felt the need to explore Americas successes and failures at
commemoration, and the global consequences that accompanied them. While
Stubblefield and Simpson share a similar dismal opinion, one which implies that 9/11
was commemorated in a way that furthered military agendas and beget more violence,
the stances of Haskins, Bleiker, and Aronson focus more on the positive ability of
memorialization to provide closure, spark innovative conversation, and create a
collective experience. Still, all acknowledge the controversy of 9/11s commemoration
and admit that, as vital as the 9/11 memorial has been to sustaining memories of
tragedy and heroism, its process of commemoration has faced dissent from the very
people it was meant to honor.
Controversy has been present in the World Trade Centers process of
commemoration since its very beginning. The absence of such a staple in New York
Citys skyline and the loss of so many lives prompted an immediate discussion
concerning how such a gaping hole could be filled. What followed was a shift in
Americas culture of commemoration, as investigated by Simpson in his book, 9/11 and
the Culture of Commemoration. Contrary to past memorials, including the Vietnam
Veterans Memorial, which wasnt built until seven years following the end of the war,
and the World War II Memorial, which didnt take form until even later, drafts of what
might someday become the 9/11 memorial were being drawn almost immediately.

Sebben
2

Commemoration without proper contemplation brings to surface two issues, the first a
personal claim - that projects assembled hastily often lack substance - and the second,
a claim made by Simpson - that such an abrupt push towards physical commemoration
never allowed the wound left behind by the disaster to truly heal.
For evidence to back my claim, one must look no farther than two years following
9/11. In 2003, an international competition was held, inviting artists and architects from
all around to submit possible designs for the memorial. Later that same year, the Lower
Manhattan Development Corporation announced eight designs chosen as finalists; the
response they received was mixed. Many expressed need for further contemplation,
claiming the plans presented felt impersonal and generic. One disappointed citizen
even went as far as to say, These plans could be in any park, or any memorial, for any
purpose. There is nothing about them that is unique to the tragedy that happened down
there (nytimes.com).

It is my opinion that the sparse amount of time allowed for

reflection following the event led to widespread dissatisfaction with memorial plans.
Similarly, Simpson also believes this to be problematic, although for reasons
much more radical. According to Simpson, A culture that can take time over the
commemoration of its past signals in its protracted deliberations the expectation that it
will have time, that it can look forward to a continuous future (3), a statement which
implies that because America took so little time to mourn, it must have felt as though its
very existence were at risk. Simpson goes on to say that our hasty reaction ...seemed
to insist that we not pass into a future that is forgetful of the history of atrocity, even that
we reenact the primary shock of suffering itself as a state not to be overcome but
endlessly made present (3). By prolonging the attack, we have inadvertently prolonged
feelings of fear and suspicion which has in turn led to a society more willing to engage
in wars and demonize an entire populace of people based solely on their religion. Thus,
Simpson claims that 9/11 has been commemorated in such a way that it justifies the
invasions of Iraq and bombings of Afghanistan.
Stubblefield agrees. In his book, 9/11 and the Visual Culture of Disaster, he also
examines the memory effects of the World Trade Center and the contributions theyve
made to creating a more militarized society. He calls 9/11 a historical event without
historical distance, (4) playing into the assumptions of Simpson and I that the event of

Sebben
3

9/11 was not given enough time to reflect upon before its process of commemoration
began. Though the attacks took place nearly fifteen years ago, many still feel the
wounds as though theyre still fresh. Even those who were not alive at the time are
given the opportunity to understand and mourn the event by the 9/11 museum, which
takes visitors on a detailed journey through the events of that day. Pictures are shown,
videos played, and the names of all who perished etched into concrete. A section even
exists in which the remains of the unidentified dead are held. While visual images seem
an accurate and reliable source, Stubblefield draws upon the ideas of photographer,
Kracauer, to warn of a gap between photography and memory image that widens over
time and leads to a skewed perception of reality. As Kracauer writes in his book,
Photography, Truth content of the original photograph is left behind in history (1). In
other words, a photograph is only representative of a small moment in the history it
attempts to represent - it is a partial story and one that can be easily manipulated to suit
the agendas of those in power. In Stubblefields opinion, as in Simpsons, the 9/11
museum and its constant recap of the events of that day allow Americans to live the
event as present, justifying xenophobia, racism, fear, and, ultimately, war.
In addition to the museum, the memorial itself paints a pointed picture. Designed
by architects Michael Arad, Daniel Libeskind, and Peter Walker, the memorial is located
at the site of the World Trade Center and showcases two waterfalls, each an acre in
size, set in the exact spots where the Twin Towers once stood. Stubblefield finds this
design controversial, claiming that the void of the World Trade Center refers to the
presence of a wound which may still bleed. Furthermore, he believes the gap creates a
space to institutionalize national trauma capable of facilitating a more militarized and
suspicion nation. Though it doesnt seem naive to believe that the events of 9/11
functioned as the driving force behind increased security measures, the militarization of
local police, and the deployment of troops to the middle east, Stubblefield believes that
the commemoration of 9/11 made American citizens less likely to protest against
government missions they otherwise might have opposed. Thus, the memory of 9/11
has been shaped by Americas military-entertainment complex and its commemoration
has been used as a means of furthering American political and military agendas.

Sebben
4

Still, for all its flaws, the current 9/11 memorial and museum is widely considered,
especially by the families of those killed, a much better alternative than the design
initially intended. After the attacks, the International Freedom Center (IFC) proposed a
museum that would take visitors on a journey through the history of freedom by
detailing a global history which would include everything from Native American genocide
to slavery to refugee crisis and more. As important as these chapters in history are,
their relevance in a space meant to commemorate those fallen on September 11th were
highly doubted. In fact, the plans of the IFC, however well intended, were despised so
intensely by the American public and the families of the victims that a movement, Take
Back the Memorial, began in response. Prompted by an article written for the Wall
Street Journal by Debra Burlingame titled The Great Ground Zero Heist, a petition was
penned to have the IFC removed from World Trade Center site plans. Several months
later, enough signatures were acquired to gain the attention of Governor George Pataki
and the IFC was ousted, to the pleasure of Americans across the nation.
That being said, controversy exists even now concerning the successes and
failures of the 9/11 memorial and museum. Much of the conversation generated is in
regard to the section of the museum which houses the unidentified remains of those
killed in the attacks. As discussed by Aronson in his novel, Who Owns the Dead?: The
Science and Politics of Death at Ground Zero, the process of recovering, identifying,
and memorializing victims is one which begets controversy from all sides. Aronson
claims, Human remains have political, cultural, and emotional power, (3), suggesting
that they are far too important to be cast aside, regardless of whether or not they can be
matched to a name. He goes on to say, While forensic identification cannot bring the
dead back to life, it can restore some sense of normalcy to families and communities
whose loved ones have died in traumatic and violent ways (4). It is necessary, then, to
include the identification process in the overall process of commemoration. However,
many disagree that the site of the memorial is the proper place in which to do so.
Families, for example, who are still missing the physical body of their loved ones are
sickened by the notion that a profit is being made off of the grave of their dead.
However, Aronson does not see this controversy as explicitly negative; in fact, he
believes that, not only are controversies entirely normal in situations such as this, but

Sebben
5

that they also helps us understand how cultural meaning and memory are produced
around painful events of the past (9). Thus, though the 9/11 memorial and museum
remain despised by some, they act as necessary reminders of what has been lost.
Finally, the positives of the 9/11 memorial and museum are explored by scholars
Bleiker and Haskins. Although Haskins writes her essay, Memory, Visibility, and Public
Space: Reflections on Commemoration(s) of 9/11, prior to the actual construction of the

monument, both she and Bleiker share the view that public works of art are vital to
creating a collective narrative that is easily accessible to all of the nation. In his article,
Art After 9/11, Bleiker describes art as a way of knowing political events (1) and claims
that architecture has power to generate political and moral discussions (85). In his
opinion, to combat an issue as dangerous and complex as terrorism, one must utilize art
and monuments to educate the general public so that we are then able to expand our
insights and retaliate. This viewpoint is similar to that of Haskins, which insinuates a
belief that public works of art, such as monuments, function positively in society to bring
people together and educate them on matters and events that they might have
otherwise been ignorant to. In the case of the 9/11 memorial and museum, visitors are
able to immerse themselves in a story that they may not have been a part of previously
but can now understand with the help of visual images and art. Hence, the importance
of monuments in cultivating culture and community in a society are again made clear by
these two scholars.
Ultimately, the attacks on the World Trade Center were an event no one had
foreseen and in, our shock, we engaged in a process of commemoration unlike any
other. From personal photographs and homemade shrines built in remembrance to
dozens of designs considered and discarded for the permanent memorial, grief has
been expressed in innumerable ways. Its clear by the controversies caused, dissent
expressed, and strong beliefs held by those such as Stubblefield and Simpson, that
America has yet to master the art of commemoration. However, regardless of our
stumbles, Haskins and Bleiker seek to remind us that to remember is to unite and that
only together can we keep the memories of those lost in the smoke, flames, and debri
alive.

Sebben
6

Work Cited:
Haskins, Ekaterina V. and DeRose, Justin P. Memory, Visibility, and Public Space:
Reflections on Commemoration(s) of 9/11. Sage Publications, 2003.

Bleiker, Roland. Art after 9/11. Journal Citation Reports, 2006.

Aronson, Jay D. Who Owns the Dead? The Science and Politics of Death at
Ground Zero. Harvard University Press, 2016.

Simpson, David. 9/11: The Culture of Commemoration. The University of Chicago Press,
2006.

Sebben
7
Stubblefield, Thomas. 9/11 and the Visual Culture of Disaster. Indiana University Press, 2015.

Take Back the Memorial. 2005-2011. http://www.takebackthememorial.net/about.htm

Collins, Glen. The Ground Zero Memorial: Reaction; 8 Designs Confront Many Agendas at
Ground Zero. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/20/nyregion/the-ground-zero-memorialreaction-8-designs-confront-many-agendas-at-ground-zero.html

Burlingame, Debra. The Great Ground Zero Heist.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB111810145819652326