With Reference to the Temporary Memorial in St Anne’s Square, which Memorialised Victims of the 2017 Manchester Arena Bombing. Critically Analyse how this Memorial Relates to Wider Political Geographies
Memory spaces are landscapes which seek to create a public demonstration of memorialisation (Greenspan, 2003). Memorialisation is symbolic and highly politicised (Durbin, 2003). This is due to the meanings behind what memorials represent, and how they are presented being highly contested, allowing for a number of interpretations of the space.
This essay will include an analysis of politicised notions within spaces of memorialisation, drawing upon conceptions of nationalism and political agendas through the creation and absence of different remembrance discourses. This essay will then further analyse the political geographies within the memory space of St Anne’s Square in Manchester City Centre, which hosted the temporary memorial commemorating the individuals who died in the Manchester arena bombing in 2017.
This essay will be centred around how key political concepts are associated with memory spaces and how they link to wider political geographies. A section looking at the contextual introduction to my space of memory will be included followed by an in-depth deconstruction of the meanings and representations of the space of memory. This will be followed by an analysis into the specific politicised significances that encompass this landscape. There will be a discussion into how the event of the Manchester Arena bombing, allowed for enhanced localised notions of remembrance and advocated a Mancunian identity as well as creating a global influence through an international identity of solidarity and resistance. This essay will be finalised by a conclusion, which will highlight key arguments presented throughout this essay. Relevant literature will be present throughout the essay in order to add rigour and clarity to my arguments.
The idea of memory is a complex and contested notion as it is visualised in a number of ways (Legg, 2007). This idea of memory enhances different meanings which enable a personal or collective experience. Whilst memory allows for remembrance of death and physical and emotional destruction (Sather-Wagstaff, 2016), it also allows for the silencing of particular events and truths.
The geography behind memory is discussed in a sense that spaces of memory are materialised representations of particular events (Jones and Garde-Hansen, 2012). Formal sites of memory are continually being constructed as frequent acts of conflict still occur each day (Sather-Wagstaff, 2016). Each formal landscape holds a specific significance to the memorialisation of each event. The construction of sites of memory has facilitated different human engagements, producing value and meaning behind the significant space (Sather-Wagstaff, 2016). These spaces allow for a sense of collectiveness to be produced through the idea of a shared sense of memorialisation. However, this idea of a collective space also brings about contestation within these landscapes, allowing for the production of alternative counter-identities to form which challenge original notions of memorialisation (Jones and Garde-Hansen, 2012).
Typically, memorials are physical and cultural representations of people who have died in different events, in which these individuals belonged to a particular nation state (Sather-Wagstaff, 2016). The construction of these specific sites of memory engages with notions of maintaining nationalism and enhancing specific political ideologies as a way of legitimising public identity (Jones et al., 2004; Rose-Redwood, 2008; Sather-Wagstaff, 2016). This idea of loss being brought about to people who belong to the same nation-state enhances wider emotional and objective political meanings, acknowledging the idea that every space of memory is constructed through broader political concepts (Jones et al., 2004).
Jones et al., (2004) enhances this notion by examining controls over different memory spaces through political power. Different spaces of memory are constructed by political actors, of which controls over these spaces are displayed through the focus of what is being remembered and what has been forgotten. Many memory spaces are landscapes which reflect notions of nationhood (Jones et al., 2004) and this is politicised through the remembrance of individuals who belong to that particular nation-state. Nationhood is constructed through the idea of collective meaning, as nations are spaces which contain individuals who carry similar traits (Jones, et al., 2004). This concept brings about a sense of belonging and togetherness by focusing on a shared modern history as well as producing personal connections in which an individual will make through their own national identity (Jones and Garde-Hansen, 2012). Collective actors formulate a stance which embodies an image of power and authority and this can be exerted through symbolic dominant memory discourses (Paddison, et al., 2002).
However, nationhood has also brought about notions of exclusivity and marginalisation (Harris, 2006). This idea is mirrored in spaces of memory, as whilst many memory spaces bring about this idea of collective memory, inclusion and the expression of a group identity (Hoelscher and Alderman, 2004), these spaces also exhibit segregation through the absence of certain truths which constitute to the history behind specific memorials and events, ultimately composing different ideas of nationhood.
As stated by Rose-Redwood et al., (2008) there are a number of debates which influence the political representation of memory as different individuals consume each space of memory differently. The idea of individuals connecting differently to the original, constructed meaning behind specific memorials has challenged state objectives and advanced a confrontation of historical realities. The idea of belonging to a particular nation and therefore a specific identity can be contested and resisted enabling the emergence of counter memory. Counter memory challenges the meanings behind an organised collective memory (Buffington and Waldner, 2011) recognising a plethora of alternative truths behind the ideal of remembrance (Legg, 2005). This challenges political elites and normalised heritage consumption practices, allowing individuals to connect memory in a way which shapes their own diverse understanding of identity. Whilst counter memory seeks to unveil hidden truths surrounding an organised collective memory, in essence, this notion of resistance almost creates a collective memory in itself. This is done by constructing another ideal of remembrance through mechanisms which enable links to localness (Legg, 2005). Whilst this memory is a contrast to the state's ideal of memory it allows for an emergence of another dominant localised discourse. Connecting people to their own identity in a different way, further challenging original notions of what it means to belong to a specific identity.
The temporary memorial, constructed in St Anne’s Square, Manchester, after the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing will be the space of memory this essay will focus on. On the 22nd of May 2017, a suicide bomber detonated an explosive device in the foyer of Manchester Arena following a music concert (Coyle, 2018). The bomb caused mass destruction to the arena, killed 22 people and injured a further 120 people (Coyle, 2018). The temporary memorial consisted of a vail of flowers, toys, football t-shirts and balloons which covered the floor of St Anne’s Square in Manchester (Bardsley, 2018). This created a striking, vibrant landscape symbolising the mourning of the people of Manchester and creating a space in which reflected localised grief.
Picture 1: A picture of the temporary memorial in St Anne’s Square (Bardsley, 2018).
Doss (2010) comments on the idea that these particular practices of flower laying and the placing of gifts and mementoes are common practices which enable the production of temporary memorials. It displays how an ordinary urban landscape can be transformed into a space for remembrance and enhance performances of solidarity in order to advocate a collective response in the reflection of a politicised event.
The site became a commemorative landscape due to practices which were performed within the space. The act of laying of flowers and gifts, constructed the materiality of the temporary memorial in St Anne’s Square, producing a prominent landscape which became figurative towards the Manchester bombing. The memorial was created by spontaneous acts of mourning from Mancunians in order for them to come and pay their respects to the lives lost during this traumatic event (Svendsen and Campbell, 2010). The construction of this space of memory is symbolic as it was a site which formed a strong sense of community, localised solidarity and highlighted the material creation of a collective Mancunian identity (Nagel, 2002; Durbin, 2003; Jones et al., 2004). The construction of the memorial gave the everyday landscape, of St Anne’s Square, meaning and value through diverse social interactions and performances of memorialisation. Doss (2010) highlights this as a modification in commemorative culture. Contemporary memorials are a display of personal grievances which are constructed after tragic and sudden events (Doss, 2010). The impact of traumatic events affect society as they highlight the need for political change and enhanced protection (Durbin, 2003). Therefore, emphasising that the performances of flower laying within this space of memory was a spontaneous act of unity. The idea of this space of memory creating homogeneity draws upon localised notions of nationhood. Within the idea of nationhood, comes subdivisions which exist within particular nations, creating the idea of locality.
Local identity was prominent in the creation of the Manchester bombing temporary memorial as it highlighted a spatial distinction of where the event took place (Sorek, 2008). It occurred in Manchester City Centre and a vivid local narrative was formed surrounding a Mancunian identity. This emphasised a mutual enhancement of a local identity and allowed for survivors of the attack to form a sense of local pride, further enhancing collective memory. This local identity was mobilised by the striking landscape within St Anne’s square, it displayed cohesion within the city and legitimised the Mancunian identity, allowing for it to be distinctive and separate from that of a national identity (Sorek, 2008).
Whilst it was clear that event was memorialised within Manchester and highlighted a prominent localised Mancunian identity, the event was represented on an international scale. This was done through the role of social media. Many campaigns on social media, produced through the use of hashtags and photos, created this emergence of an additional online memorial (Gibbs, 2015). Mass culture and media have advanced notions of collective memory through multi-national levels of support (Durbin, 2003). A collective feeling of grief and sadness was produced, advancing egalitarian communication in order to support the feeling of reliance and social encouragement within a global online community.
Whilst the cohesive support produced by an online reaction advocated notions of collective memory, the use of social media allows for an alternative construction of memory. Individuals began to assimilate their own views and opinions surrounding the event, which highlights alternative accounts of memorialisation, different to the ones produced by the state through newspapers and media coverage. This allowed for a wide range of commemorative enactments (Haskins, 2007) and providing another politicised cultural dimension to this specific space of memory (Gibbs, 2015).
As stated previously, the material construction of the memory space was made up predominately of flowers and gifts, aiding the idea that the site was constructed out of objects which had meaning and value allowing for a collective social manifestation of grief (Howard, 2007: Woodthorpe, 2010). Public acts of mourning are highly contested and ambiguous, as it brings about ideas of correct acts of grief and appropriate assumption of memorialisation. This was present within the temporary memorial within St Anne’s Square. Individual’s laying flowers and presenting gifts, felt as if this act was an appropriate way of memorialisation the victims, allowing for a sense of collective grief which aiding the reproduction of identity. Creating a heightened understanding of material culture within commemorative landscapes (Woodthorpe, 2010). Due to the nature of the site being a temporary memorial, it was evident that the commemorate landscape would not be sustainable in its current location, highlighting that there are many issues which surround memory spaces and their sustainability and conservation (Jones and Garde-Hansen, 2012). In response to this issue, Manchester City Council arranged for the flowers at the memorial site to be pressed and compiled into a book, which will be kept at Manchester Art Gallery (Bardsley, 2018). This allowed for the spontaneous memorial to be reproduced into a more permanent object of remembrance and allowed for an additional act of appropriate memorialisation (Woodthorpe, 2010). Creating a singular object which was materialised from a space of memory, would represent powerful emotions of grief and commemoration, allowing for a prolonged connection between the living and the dead (Woodthorpe, 2010).
However, the removal of the temporary memorial in St Anne’s square was contested and highly politicised. This is due to the politicised actors being the dictators of what, where and how the permanent memorial should be constructed. In the case of the temporary memorial in St Anne’s Square, Manchester City Council exercised power over the reproduction of the memorial. The fact that the memorial has been constructed by the citizens of Manchester gave the memorial character, an individual sense of meaning and a real awareness of sadness and loss. Therefore, the removal and recreation by political actors of this memory space, has meant that it may have lost its original sense of meaning and lessens what it represents (Greenspan, 2003).
There are clear indications and heightened acknowledgement that this space of memory enforces collective memory. However, this space of memory was created by the people of Manchester and not for the people of Manchester. Producing the idea that counter memory was also formed and this was done by the creators of the site being non-political elites. The creation of temporary memorials focusses on grass route practices whereby objects of meaning are placed at sites which represent traumatic events or death (Margry and Sánchez-Carretero, 2011). This was demonstrated within the landscape of the temporary memorial in St Anne’s square, which allowed for individuals to participate in the creation of the memory space. Therefore, whilst the form of remembrance allowed for an identification of collective memory, the fact that the construction of the memory scape was formulated by non-political individuals displayed counter-memory narratives, through a community’s contemplation of loss and refusal to forget (Legg, 2005). This memory space was a beacon of community and grief and was produced by ritualized practises of memorialisation. Furthermore, the memory space allowed for each individual to have a voice regarding their own grief. This displayed a community involvement, rather than individuals being observers within a space of memory (Haskins, 2007; Margry and Sánchez-Carretero, 2011). The creation of this space, both physically and meaningfully, have mobilised a shift in the authority of the creation of spaces of memory (Margry and Sánchez-Carretero, 2011). This idea of a predominant authority shift aids politicisation of an urban landscape, through the absence of a dominant political elite.
To conclude, there are many key political concepts that relate to wider political geographies which link to the temporary memorial in St Anne’s Square created for the Manchester Arena bombing in 2017. The main narratives which have been synthesised in this essay are that memory spaces are contested and have multiple meanings and representations (Legg, 2007). This is apparent when considering the temporary memorial in St Anne’s Square as counter and collective memory were examined. Counter memory was examined within this space through its creation by non-political elites. Grass route practises of flower laying and the placing of mementos by individuals within society aided the analysis of the creation of the space (Margry and Sánchez-Carretero, 2011). Collective memory was analysed through notions of local identity and global solidarity (Nagel, 2002; Durbin, 2003; Jones et al., 2004). This enables an analysis which highlights that spaces of memory are politicised as they allow communities to grieve in a way which protests for change, bringing sentiment and value into everyday landscapes.