Statues are undemocratic

Sometimes the strictures that emanate from these “things” are glaringly obvious. For example, historian Jeremy Brecher, in his work on the American labor movement, “Strike,” argues that the imposing armories that populate many of the cites of the Northeast were intended to send a message of intimidation to movement participants. The same can be said about monuments and statues of Confederate generals and leaders. Some activists and citizens have taken this same viewpoint towards earlier historical figures such as Christopher Columbus. Conflicts over the meaning of these monuments have become violent in some instances.

Is there though, beyond this deep and fundamental conflict over history itself a deeper issue regarding monuments — are they essentially undemocratic? Who gets to build them and why should be a question that is posed prior to the breaking of ground or the casting of bronze.

More than most other thinkers, philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre delved deeply into these forms of social iconography. He himself turned down on such icon — the Nobel prize for literature. Certainly there is a great distinction to be made between the Nobel Prize and a statue of Jefferson Davis. Sartre’s point though, is that in addition to the conditioning of human behavior that is the often-unacknowledged goals of these types of honors, they attempt to concretize a definition for humanity the meaning of a moment or event. With regard to the openness of the written word, another French philosopher, Jacques Derrida put it aptly when he said that, the writing continues after the author has put down their pen.

For Sartre, existence imposes a heavy burden on artists — is art promoting historically discredited ideas such as fascism or white supremacy, or is it enhancing the prospects of human freedom? He will have nothing of the preposterous false equivalency that often haunts our debates.

Of course, it can and has been argued that these monuments, statues and the like are merely an homage to one’s heritage. For example, the statue of Christopher Columbus is said to represent Italian-Americans and their contribution to America. Really? Isn’t the very idea of a monument to ItalianAmericans inherently false?

If we reflect for a moment on the monumental contributions of Italian-Americans to the United States, it is immediately clear that no statue can ever be large enough for the pedestal.

The contributions of Italian-Americans, like those of African-Americans, IrishAmericans, Native-Americans, MexicanAmericans, Latino-Americans and other identities, are alive, they are authentic, they are profound and, ironically, they are universal. Seen in this light, physical monuments are such a minuscule representation.