Sturken, Vietnam Memorial

8/10/2019 Sturken, Vietnam Memorial

1/26

The Wall, the Screen, and the Image: The Vietnam Veterans MemorialAuthor(s): Marita SturkenSource: Representations, No. 35, Special Issue: Monumental Histories (Summer, 1991), pp. 118-142Published by: University of California PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2928719.

Accessed: 16/06/2011 18:05

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at.http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucal..

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

University of California Pressis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Representations.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucalhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2928719?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucalhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucalhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2928719?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucal


2/26

MARITA

STURKEN

The

Wall,

the

Screen,

and the

Image:

The

Vietnam

Veterans Memorial

THE

FORMS REMEMBRANCE

TAKES

indicate the status

of

memory

within

given

culture.

n

these

forms,

we

can see

acts

of

public

commemoration

as moments n whichshifting iscourses of history, ersonal memory, nd cul-

tural

memory onverge.

Public commemoration s a

form f

history-making,

et

it

can also

be a contestedform f remembrance

n

which ulturalmemories

lide

through

and into each

other,

merging

and

then

disengaging

in

a

tangle

of

narratives.

With the Vietnam

War,

discourses of

public

commemorationhave become

inextricably

ied to

the

question

of

how war is

brought

to

a

closure

in

American

society.

How,

for

nstance,

does

a

society

ommemorate war for

which the cen-

tralnarrative

s

one

of division nd

dissent,

war

whose

history

s

highly

ontested

and still

n

the

process

of

being

made?

As

PeterEhrenhaus

writes,

The

tradition

of

U.S.

public

discourse

n

thewake of war

s

founded

upon

the

premises

f

clarity

of

purpose

and

success;

when such

presumptions

must account

for

division,

equivocation,

and

failure,

nd

when

losing

is

among

the

greatest

of

sins,

com-

memoration

eems somehow

nappropriate. '

Yetthe Vietnam

War-with

itsdivi-

sion and

confusion,

ts ack of

a

singular,

historicalnarrative

defining

lear-cut

purpose

and outcome-has

led to

a

very

different

orm

f commemoration.

I

would

like

to

focus this

discussionof

public

remembrance n the notion

of

a

screen,

n

its

manymeanings.

A

screen

can be a surface hat s

projected

upon;

it s also an

object

thathides

something

rom

view,

hat helters r

protects.

t can

be a surface, r evena

body-in

military

anguage

a screens a

body

ofmen who

are

used to cover

the movements f

an

army.

Freud's

screen

memory

functions

to

hide

highly

emotional

material,

which the screen

memory

conceals while

offering

tself s

a

substitute.

he kinds of screens that

converge

n

the Vietnam

Veterans

Memorial

n

Washington,

.C.,

both shield and

project:

the

black walls

of the memorial

act as screens

for nnumerable

projections

f

memory

nd his-

tory-of

the

United

States'

participation

n

the Vietnam War and of

the

experi-

ence

of the Vietnam veterans

ince the

war-while

they

creen out the narrative

of defeat

in

preparing

for wars to

come.

Seeing

the

memorial as

a

screen also

evokes the screens on which the war was and continuesto be experienced-cin-

118

REPRESENTATIONS 35

*

Summer 1991

?

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA


3/26

ematic

and

television

creens-through

which

the contested

history

f the war

is

being

made.

Cultural

memoryrepresents

he

many shifting

istories

nd shared

memo-

ries that

exist between

a sanctioned

narrative

f

history

nd

personal

memory.

The formation f a singular, anctionedhistory f the VietnamWar has notyet

taken

place,

in

part

because of the

disruption

f the standard

narratives f

Amer-

ican

imperialism,

echnology,

nd

masculinity

hat the war's

loss

represented.2

The

history

f the Vietnam

War

is still n the

process

of

being

composed

from

many

conflicting

istories,

yet

there are

particular

lements within

hese

often

opposing

narratives

hat

remain uncontested-the

irony

f the

war,

he

pain

and

subsequent

marginalization

f the Vietnam

veteran,

nd the divisiveeffect

he

war

had

on American

society.

his

essay

s concerned

withhow

certain

narratives

of the

war have been

constructed

ut of and within he fluid

realmof

cultural

memory,n whichpersonalmemories re sharedformanydifferenturposes. I

would

like to

examine

how

the screens

of the Vietnam

VeteransMemorial

act

to

eclipse

personal

and collective

memoriesof

the war fromthe

design

of

history,

and

yet

how the textures

f cultural

nd

personal

memory

re nevertheless

woven

throughout,

erhaps

over

and

under,

these

screens.

The

1980s

and

1990s have

witnessed

a

repackaging

of the 1960s

and

the

Vietnam

War-a

phenomenon

that

is

steeped

in the

language

of

nostalgia,

healing,

and

forgiveness.

he Vietnam

VeteransMemorial

has become

a central

icon of

the

healing

process

of

confronting

ifficult

ast experiences,

nd it has

played

a

significant

ole

in

the historization

nd rehistorization

f the war. Since

its onstruction

n

1982,

the

memorial

has

been the center fa

debate

on

precisely

how

wars

should

be

remembered,

nd

precisely

who should be

remembered

n a

war-those

who

died,

those who

participated,

hose

who

engineered

t,

or

those

who

opposed

it.

The Status

of a Memorial

Although

administered

under

the

aegis

of

the National

Parks

Service

of the Federal Government, he Vietnam VeteransMemorial was built

n

1982

through

the

impetus

of

a

group

of

Vietnam

veterans,

the Vietnam

Veterans

Memorial

Fund

(VVMF),

who raised

the

necessary

funds

and

negotiated

for

a

siteon

the

Mall

in

Washington.

ituated

on the

grassy lope

of the Constitutional

Gardens

near the Lincoln

Memorial,

the memorialconsists f two

walls

of

black

granite

et nto the earth

at an

angle

of

125

degrees.

Together,

he

walls form n

extended

V almost 500 feet

n

length,

apering

n

both directions rom

height

of

approximately

en

feet t the central

hinge.

These

walls

re

currently

nscribed

with

58,132

names of

men and

women

who died

in

the

war,

as well

as

with

opening

and

closing

nscriptions.

he

chronological

isting

f names

begins

on

The

Wall,

he

creen,

nd the

mage

119


4/26

the

right-hand

ide of the

hinge

and

continues o the

end of the

right

wall;

it then

begins again

at

the

far

nd of

the eftwall

and continues o the

center

gain.

Thus,

the name of

the

first

American

soldier killed

n

Vietnam in

1959 is on a

panel

adjacent to thatcontainingthe name of the lastAmerican killedin 1975. The

framing

dates

of 1959 and 1975 are the

only

dates listed

on

the

wall;

the names

are listed

alphabetically

within ach

casualtyday,

lthough

those dates are not

noted.3

Eight

of the names

on the wall

represent

women who died

in

the war.

Since

1984,

the

memorialhas

been

accompanied

by

figurativeculpture

f

three

soldiers

nd a

flag,

both

facing

he

monument

from

group

of trees t a

distance

of about

thirty ards.

The

memorial

stands

n

opposition

to the

codes of

remembrance videnced

on the

Washington

Mall.

Virtually

ll of the national

memorials

nd

monuments

in

Washington

re made of

white

stone

and are

constructed o be seen from

a

distance. n

contrast,

heVietnam VeteransMemorialcuts ntothe

sloping

earth:

it is not visible

until

one

is almost

upon

it,

and

if

approached

from

behind,

it

seems

to

disappear

into the

andscape.

While the

polished

black

granite

walls

of

the memorial

reflect he

Washington

Monument

and

face the Lincoln

Memorial,

they

re not

visible fromthe

base of

either

of those

structures. he black stone

gives

the memorial

reflective

urface

one

thatechoes

the

reflecting ool

of the

Lincoln

Memorial)

that llows

viewers

o

participate

n

the

memorial;

eeing

their

own

images

in the

names,

they

re thus

mplicated

n

the

isting

f the

dead.

As a

memorial,

rather han

a

monument,

he

Vietnam VeteransMemorial s

situatedwithin particular ode ofremembrance, ne thatArthurDanto evokes:

We erect

monuments

o that

we shall

always

remember,

nd build

memorials

o

thatwe shall

never

forget. 4

Monuments re

not

generally

uilt

to commemorate

defeats;

the

defeated dead

are remembered

n

memorials.While

a

monument

most often

signifies

ictory,

memorial

refers

o the life

or

lives

sacrificed

or a

particular

et

of values. Memorials

embody grief,

oss,

and tribute r

obligation;

in

so

doing,

they

serve to

frame

particular

historical

narratives.

They

are,

according

to

Charles

Griswold,

a

species

of

pedagogy

[that]

seeks to instruct

posterity

bout

the

past

and,

in

so

doing,

necessarily

eaches

a

decision

about

what s worthrecovering. 5

Thus,

whatever

riumph

particular

memorialrefers

o,

ts

depiction

of vic-

tory

s

always

tempered

by

a

foregrounding

f the ives

ost.

The

Lincoln

Memo-

rial is a

funereal

structure

hatconnotes a

mausoleum,

embodying

he man

and

his

philosophy

n

privileging

his words on its walls.

The

force of

the

Lincoln

Memorial

is thus

ts

mythical

eference o Lincoln's

untimely

eath. The Wash-

ington

Monument,

on

the other

hand,

operates

purely

as

a

symbol,making

no

reference

beyond

its

name to

the

mythic oliticalfigure.

This contrast

utlines

one of the

fundamental

differences etween memorials nd monuments:

mon-

uments tendto use lessexplanation,whilememorials endtoemphasizetexts r

listsof the dead.

Therefore,

while monuments

and

victories)

re

usually

anon-

120

REPRESENTATIONS


5/26

ymous,

the

rony

of lives

ost for an unattained

goal-in

the case of

the Vietnam

War,

an

unspoken

goal

in

an

undeclared war-in

a memorialseems to

demand

the

naming

of

the ndividual.6

The

traditional

Western

monument

glorifies

ot

only

ts

ubject

but

architec-

tural history s well. The obelisk of the WashingtonMonument,whichwas

erected from

1848 to

1885,

has

its roots in Roman

architecture;

ong

before

Napoleon pilfered

hemfrom

Egypt

o take to

Paris,

belisks arriedconnotations

of the

imperial

trophy.

he Lincoln

Memorial,

whichwas

built n

1922,

is

mod-

eled

on the

classic Greek

temple, specifically

eferring

o the Parthenon.

The

Vietnam

Veterans

Memorial,

however,

makes

no directreference o the

classical

history

f art

or architecture.

s a blank

slate,

t

does not chart

lineage

from he

accomplishments

f

past

civilizations.

Yet

the Vietnam

Veterans

Memorial

s

unmistakably epresentative

f a

par-

ticularperiod inWestern rt. n theuproar that ccompanied itsconstruction,t

became

the

focus of

a debate

about

the role of modernism

n

public sculpture.

Just

one

month

prior

to the dedication of the memorial

n November

1982,

Tom

Wolfe

wrote

vitriolic

ttack n

its

design

n the

Washington

ost,

alling

t a

piece

of modernist

orthodoxy

that

was a tribute o

Jane

Fonda. 7

Wolfe and

other

critics

of modernism

compared

the

memorial to two

infamouslyunpopular

government-funded

ublic

sculptures:

Carl Andre's Stone ield

culpture

1980)

in

Hartford,

Connecticut,

nd

Richard Serra's

TiltedArc

1981)

in

downtown

Man-

hattan.8

hese two

works

had come to

symbolize

he

alienating

ffect

f modern

sculptureon certainsectorsof theviewingpublic, eading to questionsbythose

viewers bout the

ways hey

elt

ax-funded

ublic

sculptures

were

being

mposed

on them.

Before

it

was

built,

the

memorial

was

seen

by many

veterans and

critics

f

modernism

as

yet

another

abstract

modernistwork that the

public

would find

difficult o

interpret.

Yet

in

situating

he Vietnam Veterans Memorial

purely

within

he context

f

modernism,

Wolfe

nd his fellow ritics

gnore

fundamental

aspects

of this

work.The memorial

s not

simply

flat, lack,

abstract

wall;

it s a

wall

nscribedwith

names. When

the

public

visits his

memorial,

hey

do not

go

to see

long

walls

cut nto the earth

but to see the names of those

whose lives were

lost in the war.Hence, to call thisa modernistwork s to

privilege

a formalist

reading

of

its

design

and to

negate

its

commemorative

nd textual

functions.

While

modernism

n

sculpture

has been defined

as a kind

of

sitelessness, 9

he

memorial

s

specifically

ituated

within he national context f

the Mall. Deliber-

ately counterposed

to the dominant

monumental

styles

surrounding

it,

the

memorial

refers

o,

absorbs,

nd

reflects he classicalforms f the

Mall. The black

walls mirrornot

only

the faces

of viewers nd

passing

clouds but also

the Wash-

ington

obelisk,

hus

forming

n

impromptupastiche

of monuments.

The memo-

rial's

relationship

to the

earth

shifts

etween

a sitelessness nd site

specificity,

betweencontext nd decontextualization.t delicately alances betweeneffacing

The

Wall,

he

creen,

nd the

mage

121


6/26

and

embracing

the earth-it

cuts nto

the

earth,

yet

strikes

harmony

with

the

terrain.

But it

is as

a

war memorial

that

the Vietnam Veterans Memorial is most

importantly

ifferent rommodernist

culpture.

The first ational

memorial

to

an

American

war

built since

World War

II

memorials,

t

makes a

statement n

war

that

diverges sharply

fromthe traditional

eclarations

of

prior

war memo-

rials.The Vietnam

veteranswho

organized

the

construction

f

the memorial

tip-

ulated

only

two

things

or ts

design-that

it containthe names

of those who

died

or are

missing

n

action

and

that t

be

apolitical

and

harmonious with the site.

Implicit

within

hese

guidelines

was also a desire that

the

memorial

offer

ome

kind of closure

to the debates

on the war.

Even

so,

in

these

stipulations

he vet-

erans had

already

set the

stage

forthe dramatic

disparity

etweenthe

message

of

this memorial

and thatof its

antecedents.While the concern for the memorial's

context n theMall tended to rule out a verticalmonument, he intent hatthe

work not

espouse

a

political

tand

in

regard

to the war ensured that

n

the

end

the memorial

would not

glorify

he war.

The traditional

war memorial

works o

mpose

a

closure

on a

specific

onflict.

This closure

contains the

war

within

particular

master narratives

ither of

vic-

tory-in

this

ountry, ffirming

ur

military

uperiority

nd

ability

o

mpose

our

will

on others-or

of loss and

the bitter

rice

of

victory,

theme dominant

n

the

never

again

texts

f

World

War

I

memorials.

n

declaring

the

end of

a

conflict,

this

losure

can

by

ts

very

nature

serve to

sanctify

uturewars

by

offering

com-

pletednarrativewith ause and effectntact. n rejecting he architecturalineage

of monuments

nd

contesting

he aesthetic

odes of

previous

war

memorials,

he

Vietnam Veterans

Memorial

also refuses the

closure and

implied

tradition

of

those

structures;

et

t both condemns

and

ustifies

uturememorials.

The

Black

Gash

of

Shame

Before

it was

built,

he

design

of

the memorialwas

an

object

of attack

not onlybecause of its modernist estheticsbut,more significantly,ecause it

violated

mplicit

aboos about

the remembrance

f wars.

When

its

design

was

first

unveiled,

the

memorial

was condemned

by

some veterans nd others

as a

highly

political

statement

bout the

shame of an unvictorious

war. Termed the

black

gash

of

shame,

a

degrading

ditch,

black

spot

n

American

history,

tomb-

stone,

slap

in

the

face,

nd

a

wailing

wall

fordraft

dodgers

and

New Lefters

of

the

future, '?

he memorial

was

seen

as a monument o

defeat,

one that

poke

more

directly

o a nation's

guilt

than to the

honor of the war dead and the

vet-

erans.

One

prominent

veteran

of the VVMF

read its

black walls as

evoking

shame, sorrow,

nd the

degradation

of

all

races ;

others

perceived

ts refusal

to rise

above

the earth

as indicative

f defeat.

Thus,

a racist

reading

of the

color

122

REPRESENTATIONS


7/26

black was combined

with

sexist

reading

of a

feminized arth as

connoting

lack

of

power. Precisely

because

of its deviation from traditionalcommemorative

codes-white

stone

rising

above the earth-the

design

was read as a

political

statement.

An editorial n the NationalReview tated:

Our

objection

.. is based

upon

the lear

political

message

fthis

esign.

he

design ays

that he VietnamWar hould

be

memorialized

n

black,

notthewhitemarble f Wash-

ington.

he

mode f

isting

he

namesmakes

hem

ndividual

eaths,

ot eaths

n

a

cause:

they

might

s wellhavebeentrafficccidents.

he

invisibility

fthe

monument

t

ground

level

ymbolizes

he

unmentionability

f

the

war....

Finally,

he

V-shaped

lan

of

the

black

etaining

all

mmortalizeshe ntiwar

ignal,

he

V

protest

madewith

he

ingers.'2

This

analysis

of the memorial's

ymbolism,

ndeed a

perceptivereading, points

to several

crucial

aspects

of the memorial:

ts

isting

f names

does

make these

individual deaths rather hanthesingulardeath of a bodyofmen; the relation-

ship

of

the memorialto

the earth does

refuse

to evoke

heroism

nd

victory.

Certainly

he

angry

reactions

to

the memorial

go

beyond

the accusation of

the elite

pretensions

f

abstraction,

ince the uncontroversial

Washington

Mon-

ument

tself s the

epitome

of abstraction.

Rather,

believe that he

primary

and

unspoken)

aspect

of

the memorial that

s

responsible

for the

accusations

that t

does

not

appropriately

ememberwar

s its

ntiphallic resence.

By

antiphallic

I

do

not mean to

imply

that the

memorial

s

somehow

a

passive

or

feminine

form

but rather that

it

opposes

the

codes

of verticalmonuments

symbolizing

power

and honor. The

memorial

does

not stand

erect above the

landscape;

it s

continuous

with the earth.

It

evokes

contemplation

rather than

declaring

its

meaning.

The

intersection

f

the two

walls

of the

memorial

form

he

shape

of

a

V,

which

has

been

interpreted y

various

commentators

s V

for

Vietnam,

ictim,

victory,

eteran, iolate,

nd

valor.

Yet,

one

also findshere a

disconcerting

ubtext

in

which

he memorial

mplicitly

vokes castration. he

V

of

the two

black

granite

walls

has

also been read

as a

female

V,

reminding

us that a

gash

is not

only

a

wound but

slang

forthe

female

genitals.

The

memorial ontains ll

elements

hat

have

been associated

psychoanalytically

ith he

specter

of

woman-it embraces

the

earth;

it is the

abyss;

t

is

death. To its critics his

antiphallus

ymbolizes

he

open, castratedwound of thiscountry's enture ntoan unsuccessfulwar,a war

that masculated

the role the

United

Stateswould

play

n

future

oreign

onflicts.

The discourse of

healing

surrounding

he memorial

s

an

attempt

o

close

many

wounds,

the

suturing

f

which

would

mean a

revived

metanarrative f the

United

States as

a

successful

military ower

and

a

rehabilitation f

the

masculinity

f the

American

soldier.

The

controversial,

ntiphallic

form

of

the memorial is

attributable o its

having

been

designed

by

a

person

unlikely

o reiterate

raditional odes of

war

remembrance. At

the

time her

design

was

chosen

anonymously y

a

group

of

eightmale experts, MayaYingLinwasa twenty-one-year-oldndergraduateat

The

Wall,

he

creen,

nd

the

mage

123


8/26

Yale

University

ho

had

produced

the

design

for

funerary

rchitecture ourse.

She

was

not

only young

and

uncredentialed but

Chinese-American

nd,

most

significantly,

emale.

nitially,

he veterans f the VVMF

were

pleased

by

this urn

of events;they ssumed that the selectionof Lin'sdesignwould onlyshow how

open

and

anonymous

their

design

contesthad been.

However,

the selection

of

someone with

marginal

cultural tatus

s the

primary

nterpreter

f a contro-

versial

war

inevitably omplicated

matters.

ventually,

Maya

Lin

was

defined,

n

particular

by

the

media,

not as Americanbut as

other. his

otherness ecame

an issue not

only

n

the

way

she

was

perceived

n

the

media and

by

some of the

veterans;

t became a critical ssue of whether

r not that

thernesshad informed

the

design

tself. or architecture riticMichael

Sorkin,

Perhaps

twas

Maya

Lin's

'otherness' hat enabled her to create

such a

moving

work.

Perhaps only

an

out-

sider could have

designed

an

environment o successful

n

answering

the need

for

recognition

by

a

group

of

people-the

Vietnam

vets-who are

plagued by

a

sense of 'otherness'

forced on them

by

a

country

hat has

spent

ten

years

pre-

tending

not to see

them. '3

Lin's

marginal

tatus s a

Chinese-American

woman

was thus seen

as

giving

her

insight

nto the

marginal

status

experienced by

Vietnam

veterans,

n

a move that

noticeably

rased

other differences.

Debates

about Lin's

design

have also centered

on the

question

of whether r

not

it s a

passive

work thatreflects female

sensibility.

here is little

doubt

that

it

is,

in

its refusal to

glorify

war,

an

implicitly acifist

work,

and

by

extension a

political

work. As art criticElizabeth Hess

wrote,

Facing

the

myriad

names,

t s

difficult oranyonenot oquestionthepurpose of the war 269). Yet as much as

this s a

contemplative

work

that s continuous with

the

earth,

t s also a violent

work

thatcuts nto the

earth,

evoking wrenching

n

flesh.Lin has

said,

I

wanted owork

with he and nd notdominatet. had an

mpulse

ocut

pen

the arth

... an

initial

iolence

hat

n timewouldheal. The

grass

would

grow

back,

but thecut

would

emain,

pure,

lat

urface,

ike

geode

when

you

ut nto

t

nd

polish

he

dge.'4

The

black walls cannot connote

a

healing

wound

without

ignifying

he violence

whichcreated

that

wound,

cutting

nto the earth and

splitting

t

open.

Trouble betweenMayaLin and the veteransbegan almost mmediately.The

fund has

always

seen

me as a female-as a

child,

he has said.

I

went

n

there

when

I

firstwon

and

their

ttitude

was-O.K.

you

did a

good

ob,

but now we're

going

to

hire some

big

boys-boys-to

take care of

it. '5

Lin was

defined,

pri-

marily

ecause of

her sex and

age,

as outside of the veterans'

discourse. She had

also made

a decision

deliberately

not to informherself bout

the war's

political

history

o

avoid

being

influenced

by

debates

about

the war.

According

to

veteran

Jan

Scruggs,

the

primary

igure

behind the memorial's

onstruction,

She never

asked,

'What

was combat like?' or 'Who were

your

friendswhose names we're

putting n thewall?' And thevets, n turn,never once explained to her what the

words

ike

courage,'

sacrifice,'

nd 'devotion o

duty'

really

meant

79).

That Lin

124

REPRESENTATIONS


9/26

could not

understand terms

uch

as

courage

and sacrifice was

implicit

o

the

veterans

because

she was a woman and hence

positioned

outside of the

(male)

discourse of

war.

In

public

discourse,

Lin's

Asian-American

dentity

was read

as

particularly

ironicbyvirtueof her role in defining he discourse of remembranceof a war

fought

n

Indochina-even

if,

given

the

complex politics

betweenChina

and

Vietnam,

thisconflation

f

ethnic dentities

s a

particularly

merican one.

(Fur-

ther,

while

Lin's

ethnicity

eemed

appropriate

to some

in that

Asians had suffered

most

in

the

war,

t also

appeared

as

a

supreme

irony

n a war now considered

remarkable

for ts

racism.)

Hence,

Lin's status

s American

disappeared

and

she

became

simply

Asian.

Conversely,

in

stuck to her

position

as an outsider

in

consistently eferring

o the

integrity

f

my

design,

while the veterans

were

primarily

oncerned

with

the

ability

f

the

design

to

offer motional comfort

o

veteransand the familiesof the dead, either n termsof forgiveness r honor.

The

initial

disagreements

on

design

between

the veterans and

Lin,

which

ulti-

mately

ed to

several

compromises-the

veterans

agreed

to the

chronological

listing,

with

ndexes at

the siteto

facilitate

ocation,

nd

Lin

agreed

to

the addition

of

an

opening

and

closing

nscription-were

hence concerned not

so much

with

aesthetics

s about

to whom

the memorial

ultimately elonged.

In the

larger

political

rena,

these aesthetic

nd commemorative

iscourses

were also

at

play.

The

initial

response

to Lin's

design

was so

divided that

t

even-

tually

became

clear to

the veteransof

the Memorial Fund that

they

had eitherto

compromiseor to postpone the construction f the memorial whichwas to be

ready by

Veterans

Day,

November

1982).

Consequently,

plan

was

devised

to

erect an

alternative

tatue and

flag

close

to

the walls

of

the

memorial,

nd realist

sculptor

Frederick

Hart

was

chosen to

design

t.'6

Hart's

bronze

sculpture,placed

in a

grove

of

trees near

the memorial

n

1984,

consistsof three soldiers-one

black and two

white-standing

and

looking

n

the

general

direction

f the

wall.

Their

military

arb

s

realistically

endered,

with

guns slung

over their houlders

and

ammunition round

their

waists,

nd

their

xpressions

re somewhat

bewil-

dered

and

puzzled.

One of

the most vociferous

criticsof modernism

n

the

debates over

the

memorial,

Hart said at the

time,

Myposition

s

humanist,

otmilitarist.

'm

not

rying

o

say

herewas

anythingood

or

bad about

he

war. researched or hree

ears-readeverything.

became losefriends

with

many

ets,

rankwith hem

n bars.Lin's

piece

s

a

serene xercise

n

contemporary

artdone

n

a

vacuumwith o

knowledge

f

ts

ubject.

t'snihilistic-that'sts

ppeal.17

Hart bases

his credentials

on

a

kind of

knowledge

strictly

within the

male

domain-drinking

with the

veterans

in

a bar-and unavailable to

Maya

Lin,

whom

he had on another occasion

referred o as

a

mere student.

Lin is char-

acterized

by

Hart as

having designed

her

work with

no

knowledge

and

no

research, s a womanwhoworkswithfeeling nd intuition ather hanexper-

The

Wall,

he

creen,

nd the

mage

125


10/26

tise.

Hart's statement

ltimately

efines

realismas not

only

a

male

privilege

but

also

an

aesthetic

necessity

n

remembering

war.

Hart's

sculpture

does not

call

into

question

how

suitably

o

honor the ndividual

dead,

because

in

thisworkthe vet-

erans

and the dead are

subsumed nto a

singular

narrative. t thus follows

n

the

tradition f

the Marine

Corps

War

Memorial

depicting

he

raising

of the Amer-

ican

flag

at Iwo

Jima,

a work that

has

attained

an

iconic status s the ealistwar

memorial

nd a

symbol

f the United

States'

right

o raise ts

flag

on

foreign

oil.'8

The battle ver

whatkindof

style

est

represents

he

war

was,

quite

obviously,

a battle over

the

representation

f the war itself.

Hence,

in

choosing

an

apolit-

ical

memorial,

he veterans

of the VVMF

had

attempted

o

separate

the memo-

rial,

itself

a

contested

narrative,

from the contested narratives of the

war,

ultimately

n

impossible

task.

However,

after the

memorial

had

actually

been

built,

the

debate about

aesthetics

and remembrance

surrounding

its

design

simply

disappeared.

That

controversy

as

replaced

by

a

multiplicity

f cultural

discourses

on remembrance

nd

healing.

Even

Maya

Lin,

who had not attended

the

opening

ceremonies,

positioned

herself t this

point

as

just

another

viewer

experiencing

the memorial

like

everyone

else.'9 The

experience

of Lin's work

seems to

have been so

powerful

for those

who have visited t that

negative

criti-

cism of

its

design

has vanished.2

The

Names

There is

littledoubt

that

much of the memorial's

power

is

due to the

effect f

the

58,132

names

inscribed

on its walls.

Unlike

the

singular

narrative

and

totalizing

mage presented

by

realist

culptures

ike the Marine

Corps

Memo-

rial and

Hart's

statue,

mages

thatexist as confirmations f

official

istory,

hese

names,

by

virtue of

their

multiplicity,

ituate the

Vietnam Veterans Memorial

within he

multiple

trands f

cultural

memory pawned

by

the ndividual

names.

The

most

commonly

noted

response

of visitors

t the memorialhas been to

think

of the

widening

circle

of

pain

emanating

from ach

name-to

imagine

for each

name thegrievingparents, isters, rothers, irlfriends, ives, nd children;to

imagine,

n

effect,

he

multitude f

people

who were

directly

ffected

y

the

war.

This

listing

f names

creates

an

expanse

of cultural

memory,

ne that

could

be seen

as

alternately ubverting,

escripting,

nd

contributing

o

the

history

f

the

Vietnam

War

as it is

currently eing

written.

he

histories

voked

by

these

names and

the

responses

to them

are

necessarilymultiple

nd

replete

with om-

plex personal

stakes. These

narratives

re

concerned

withthe effect f the

war

on

those

who

survived

t,

whose

iveswere

rrevocably

ltered

by

t. The

listing

f

names

is

steeped

in

the

irony

of the

war-an

irony

fforded

by retrospect,

he

irony

of

lives ost

for no discernable

reason.

While

these

names

are marked

within n official

istory,

hat

history

annot

126

REPRESENTATIONS


11/26

contain

the

ever-widening

ircles that

expand

outward from each name.

The

names on the

walls

of

the memorial

omprise

chant

of

the war

dead

(they

were,

in

fact,

read out

loud at the dedication

ceremony

s a

roll

call).

They

are

etched

into

stone,

creating negative

space.

The men and women who died

in

the war

thus achievean historicallyoded presence through heir bsence. These names

are

listed

without

laboration,

withno

place

or date

of

death,

no

rank,

no

place

of

origin.

The

lack of

military

ank allows the names to

emerge

from

military

narrative nd to

represent

the names

of a

society.

t has often been noted that

these

names

display

he

diversity

f Americanculture: Fredes

Mendez-Ortiz,

te-

phen

Boryszewski,

obbyJoe

Yewell,

Leroy

Wright.

VeteranWilliam

Broyles, r.,

writes,

These

are

nameswhich

each

deep

nto

he

heart

f

America,

ach

testimony

o a

family's

decision,

ometime

n

the

past,

owrench

tself rom ome ndculture otest ur

country's

promise

fnew

opportunities

nd a betterife.

They

re names rawn rom hefarthest

corners

f theworld

nd

then,

n

this

eneration,

ent

o

another istant orner

n a war

America as

done tsbest o

forget.2L

Broyles

s

not

atypical

here,

either

n his

seeing

the

diversity

f names as indicative

of

American

society

s the

promised

and,

or

in his

putting

he

United

States at

the center

from

which these

places

of cultural

origins

nd

foreign

wars are seen

as

distant orners.

His

reading

of

the

ethnicity

f the names on the walls does

not consider

the imbalances of

their ethnic distribution-that this was

a

war

foughtbya disproportionately ighnumber of blacks and Hispanics,that twas

a war in which the

predominant

number of soldiers were

from

working-

nd

middle-class

backgrounds.

Proper

names in our culture have

complex legal

and

patriarchal

implications, identifying

ndividuals

specifically

s

members of

society.

On this

memorial,

these

names are coded as

American-not

as

Asian,

black,

or white-in a

way

that

Maya

Lin

could not be. The

ethnicity

f these

names

is subsumed nto

a

narrative f the American

melting

ot,

nto

which

Maya

Lin,

as an

agent

of

commemoration,

willnot fit.

It is

crucial to

their ffect hat hese names are listed

not

alphabetically

ut

n

chronological

order. This

was

Maya

Lin's

original

ntent,

o that the wall would

read like an

epic

Greek

poem

and return he vets o the timeframe f the war.

The veterans were

originally

opposed

to

this

idea;

since

they

conceived the

memorial

specifically

n

terms f the needs of the veterans

nd

family

members

who

would

visit

t,

hey

were worried hat

people

would be

unable to ocate a

name

and

simply

eave

in

frustration.

hey

wanted the

names to be

in

alphabetical

order to facilitate heir ocation.

They

were

swayed

n

their

opinion,

however,

when

they

xamined the Defense

Department isting

f casualties. Listed

alpha-

betically,

he names

presented

not

individualsbut cultural entities.

There were

over

six hundred

people

named

Smith,

nd

sixteen named

James Jones.

Read

alphabetically,henamesbecame anonymous tatistics.

The

Wall,

he

creen,

nd the

mage

127


12/26

The

chronological

isting

f names on the Vietnam

VeteransMemorial

pro-

vides

it with a

narrativeframework.

Read

chronologically,

he names chart the

story

f the

war.

As the number of

names

listed

alphabetically

within

casualty

day swells,the intensityf thefightings told.As one walksalong thewall,one

can

conceivably

walk

through

he

history

f the

war;

Lin and othershave referred

to

it as a

journey.

The

chronological isting

hus

provides

the veterans with

a

spatial

reference

for their

experience

of the

war,

a

kind of

memorymap.

They

can

see

in

certain

lumps

of names

the sceneof a

particular

mbush,

the casualties

of a doomed

nightpatrol,

or

the

night

hey

were

wounded.

This is not

a linear

narrativeframework.

Rather,

the names form a

loop,

beginning

s

they

do at the central

hinge

of the memorial

nd

moving

ut

on the

right

wall,

then

continuing

t the

far

end of

the eftwall and

moving

oward the

center.

They

thus form

a narrative

ircle,

n whichone can read from the

last

name to

the

first. his refusal

of

linearity

s,

n

manyways, ppropriate

to

a

con-

flict

hat has

had no

superficial

losure.

The

hinge

between the two

walls thus

becomes

a

pivotal

pace,

the narrow

pace

between the end and the

beginning

of

a

war;

it connotes

peace,

yet temporary eace

betweenwars.

The

question

of

who are

and are not named

on

the

wall s crucial within he

memorial's

representation

f

ntersecting

iscourses

ofcultural

memory

nd

his-

tory.

he veterans

of

the VVMF

were concerned

that

the

memorialbe a tribute

not

only

to those

who

died

but

to

those

who

survived he

war.

There

is

ittle oubt

that the

memorial

has become

a

powerful

ymbol

for

all Vietnam

veterans,

yet

onlythenames ofthe war dead and theMIAs are inscribed n thewall,and thus

within

history.

he

distinction

f the named

and unnamed

is thus

significant

or

the intersection

f

memory

nd

history

n

the memorial-in

particular,

or how

thismemorial

willconstruct

he

history

f the

Vietnam War

after he

generation

of

surviving

ietnam

veterans

s dead.

These

veterans,

nd thosewhose

iveswere

altered

through

their

opposition

to

the

war,

are not named.

Significantly,

he

Vietnamese

are

conspicuously

bsent

n

theirroles

either s

victims,

nemies,

or

even

the

people

on

whose

land and for

whom

this

war was

ostensibly ought.

The

inscription

f

names on

the memorial

has

posed many

taxonomic

prob-

lems.WhiletheVVMF spentmonths ross-checkingndverifyingtatistics,here

have

been errors

n

the

naming.

There

are at least

fourteen nd

possibly

s

many

as

thirty-eight

en

who are

still live

whose names are

inscribedon the

wall.22

How

can this

be resolved?

To erase

the names would

leave a scar

in

the

wall;

if

the

names

are etched

out,

these

veterans

will be

categorized

as the

not-dead,

doubly

displaced

within

the

war discourse.

There have been several

hundred

names

added

to

the memorial

ince

t was first uilt

the

nitialnumber

nscribed

on

the

walls

was

57,939),

names

thatwere

held

up previously

or

technicalities

(including,

n

one

case,

a

dispute

over

whether r not the

men were killed

n

the

presidentially esignated warzone), their tatusnowchanged from missing

or

lost to

classifiably

ead.

128

REPRESENTATIONS


13/26

The

problems

raised

by

the

inscription

f names on the memorial

signifies,

in

many ways,

the

war's lack

of

closure.

The

unmanageability

f

58,000

sets

of

statistics,

he

impossibility

f

knowing

very

detail

(who

died,

when and

where)

in

a

war

in

which

remains

were

often

unidentifiable,

revents

ny

kind of

clo-

sure.23Names willcontinueto be added to thememorial;there s no definitive

end to

the addition of

names.

There

has

been considerable

discussionof the

fact

that the

names of the veterans

who have died since the war

(from

causes

stem-

ming

from

t)

are not

included on the

memorial-veterans who committed

ui-

cide,

who died from

complications

from their

exposure

to

Agent Orange.

Are

they

not casualties of

the war? The battles till

eing fought

y

the veterans

fore-

close

any ending

to the

narrative f

the

Vietnam

War.

The Vietnam Veteran:

The

Perennial Soldier

With

he

First]

World

War

process

egan

o

become

pparent

hich

as not

halted

since

hen.Was tnotnoticeablet the nd

of

hewar hatmen eturned

rom

he

battlefield

rown

ilent-notricher

ut

oorer

n communicable

xperience?

hat en

years

aterwas

poured

ut n

the

lood f

warbooks as

anything

ut

xperience

hat

goes

mouth omouth.

nd there

as

nothing

emarkablebout hat. ornever as

experience

een ontradicted

ore

horoughly

han

trategic

xperience

y

actical

warfare,

conomic

xperience

y

nflation,

odily

xperience

y

mechanical

arfare,

moral

xperience

y

hose

n

power.

generation

hat ad

gone

o chool n

a

horse-

drawn treetcarow tood nder he pen kyn a countrysidenwhich othing

remained

nchanged

ut he

louds,

nd beneathhese

louds,

n

afield fforcef

destructiveorrents

nd

explosions,

as the

iny,

ragile,

uman

ody.

-Walter

Benjamin24

The

incommunicability

f the

experience

of

the VietnamWar has

been

a

primary

arrative

n

theVietnamveterans'

iscourse.

t was

precisely

his

ncom-

municability

hat

rendered,

mong

other

things,

he construction f the Vietnam

Veterans

Memorial

necessary.

This

incommunicability

as been

depicted

as

a

silence

rendered

by

an inconceivable

kind

of

war,

a war that fitno

prior

mages

ofwar.

While the Vietnam Veterans Memorial most

obviously pays

tribute o

the

memory

f those who died

during

the

war,

t

s

a central

con

for

the veterans. t

has

been

noted that the memorial

has

given

them a

place-one

that

recognizes

their

dentities,

place

at which to

congregate

nd from

which to

speak.

Hence,

the memorial

s

as

much

about

survival s

it

s

about

mourning

he dead.

The construction

f

an

identity

or

the

veterans ince their

returnfromthe

war has become

the most

present

nd

continuing

narrative f the memorial.The

central

theme of this narrative

s

the

way

the veterans had been

invisible nd

withoutvoicebeforethememorial's onstruction nd thesubsequent nterestn

The

Wall,

he

creen,

nd the

mage

129


14/26

discussing

the war. Veterans have

told

innumerable storiesof

the

hostility

hat

greeted

them

upon

theirreturn

from

Vietnam,

nd

there has been a

noticeable

lack of interest

n

the war

in

popular

culture until

recently-the

directresultof

an

ambivalence toward

the war due to an

inability

o fit t into

traditional

para-

digms.

The

experience

of the VietnamWar as

different

rom ll

previous

ones has

made the

process

of

narrativizing

t

particularly

ifficult.

Unlike

World War II

veterans,

Vietnam veterans did not arrive

home en

masse

for a celebration

but one

by

one,

without

ny

welcome.

Many

of

them

ended

up

in underfunded and

poorly

taffed eterans

Administration

ospitals.

They

were

expected

to

put

theirwar

experiences

behind

them and to assimilate

quickly

back

into

society.

That

many

were unable to do so resulted further

n

their

marginalization-they

were abeled social misfits nd

stereotyped

s

poten-

tially

dangerous

men

with a violence that threatenedto

erupt

at

any

moment.

According

to

George

Swiers, veteran,

The

message

ent rom ational

eadership

nd embraced

y

he

ublic

was lear:Vietnam

veterans

ere

malcontents,iars,

wackos,

osers.

Hollywood,

ver

bizarre n

ts

ffortso

mirror

ife,

iscovered

marketable

illain.

ojak,

ronside,

nd the

friendly

olks tHawaii

Five-O

confronted

razed,

heroin-addicted

eterans ith he

regularity

nd enthusiasm

Saturday

morning

eroesonce

dispensed

with

odless

red

savages.

No

grade-B

melo-

dramawas

omplete

ithout

ts tandard et-a

psychotic,xe-wielding

apist

very

it s

insulting

s another

ne-timereature

f

Hollywood'smagination,

he

hiftless,

azy,

nd

wide-eyed

lack.25

The portrayalof the veteran as a psychopathwas a kind of scapegoatingthat

absolved

the

American

public

of

complicity

nd allowed the masternarrative

f

American

military ower

to stand.

For Thomas

Myers,

To ask the veteran o

play

the

villain s a

way

to

quiet

a loud

memory,

o rewrite

new

national narrative o

that t can be

oined,

without

disturbance,

o older ones. 26

mplied

within hese

conflicting

arratives

s the

question

of whether

or

not the veterans are

to be

perceived

as victims

r

complicit

withthe war: Vets are

in

an

ambiguous

situa-

tion-they

were

the

agents

and the victims

f a

particular

kind

of

violence.

That

is the source

of

a

pain

that

almost no one else can

understand,

writes

Peter

Marin.27 ronically, he attemptto make themsilent-in effect, o make them

disappear-has

resulted

in

the Vietnam

veterans'

assumption

of

hybrid

roles;

they

re

both,

yet

neither,

oldiers

and civilians.At their

demonstrations,

many

wear

fatigues

nd

comport

the

trappings

f their tatus s soldiers.

While

the

marginalization

f the

Vietnam veteranshas

been

acknowledged

in

the

current discourse

of

healing

and

forgiveness

bout the

war,

within

the

veterans'

ommunity

nother

group

is

struggling gainst

n

imposed

silence: the

women

veterans.There were

eight

women

military

urses

and

threewomen Red

Cross workers

killed

n

Vietnam.

It is estimated hat

7,500

military

women and

an

almost

equal

number

of civilianwomen

(many

of

whom were

nurses)

served

130

REPRESENTATIONS


15/26

in

Vietnam.28

pon

their

return,

hese women were not

only

subject

to the same

difficultiess

the veteransbut

were also excluded

from

he veteran

community.

Several

have

since

revealed

how

they

kept

theirwar

experience

a

secret,

never

telling

even

their husbands

that

they

had

been

in

Vietnam. One has since

recounted how she was not allowed to participate n a veterans'protestmarch

because

male veterans

thought

that Nixon and the network news

reporters

might

hinkwe're

swelling

he ranks

withnon-vets. 29

These women veterans

were thus

doubly

displaced,

unable to

speak

as vet-

erans

or

as women. Several

are

presently

aising

funds

to

place

an

intentionally

apolitical

statue

of a woman near the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.

In

August

1990,

a

design

competition

orthe

memorial,

o be

located

ust

south of the

wall,

was

announced,

and the

fundraising

f

the

$3.5

million

o construct he memorial

continues.30

he two women

who

direct

he Vietnam Womens Memorial

Project,

Diane Evans and Donna Marie Boulay,told Elizabeth Hess that t s Hart'sdepic-

tionof three

men who make the absence

of women so

visible;

hey

would not

have

initiated he

project

had Lin's memorial

tood alone.31

This double

displacement

of

the women veterans

s

related to

a

larger

dis-

course

concerning

masculine

dentity

n

the

Vietnam War. The

Vietnam

War is

seen as

a

site

where American

masculinity

was

lost,

nd the rehabilitation f

the

Vietnam veteran

is thus

heavily

coded

as a

reinscription

f American

mascu-

linity.32

ecause

they

were denied

the

traditional

praise

afforded

veterans,

Vietnam veterans

have

a

particularly

omplex

collective

dentity-one

that

ron-

icallyhasbeen strengthened y heirmarginalization.

he

painand sufferinghat

they

xperienced

since

the

war continues o

be

read

as

masculine,

nd

the inclu-

sion of

women into that

discourse

of

remorse

and

anger

is

seen

as

a

dilution

of

its

ntensity

nd

a threat o the rehabilitation

f

that

masculinity.33

The

primary

narrativeof the veterans

n

the

discourses

surrounding

the

memorial s

not

theirwar

experience

but

theirmistreatment

ince the war. This

narrative

akes the form

of

a combat

story

n

which the

enemy

has

been

trans-

posed

from he North Vietnameseto the antiwar

movement

o

the callous Amer-

ican

people,

the Veterans

Administration,

nd the

government.

The

story

of

the

struggle

to build the

memorial also takes on this combat

form. n his book To Heal a Nation latera TV movie),veteranJan

Scruggs,

who

conceived the memorial and was the main force

behind its

being

built,

equates

the battle

aged by

the veterans o

have

the

memorialbuilt

by

Veterans

Day,

1982,

with

he battles

f

Vietnam:

Some

58,000

GIs

were,

n

death,

what

they

had been

in

life:

pawns

of

Washingtonpolitics

93).

Scruggs

s

the lone

fighter

or much

of

this

story

the

idea of

building

a

memorial when

veterans

did

not

have ade-

quate support

serviceswas

initially hought

udicrous

by many

veterans),

nd his

determination

ecomes

exemplary

for all

veterans.

n

his

story, grunts -those

who

experienced

the

real war of

combat-battle the

establishment

nd

win.

The

Wall,

he

creen,

nd the

mage

131


16/26

There is a

powerful

kind

of

closure here.

The one

story

or

whichthe memorial

appears

to offer esolution s thatof the shame

felt

by

veterans

for

havingfought

in

an

unpopular

war.

One has to question the sudden rush to welcome home veterans ten years

afterthe war had

ended,

the

clamoring

of

the media to

cover the falloutof

the

Vietnam

War after

gnoring

t for

years.

While

the

closure

for

the

veterans

of

their

period

of

estrangement

eems not

only ust

but

long

overdue,

its

mplica-

tions when transferred

nto

mainstream iscourse about

the

memorial,

nd

into

history,

an become

insidious.

When,

for

nstance,

Newsweek

rinted

story

nti-

tled

Honoring

VietnamVeterans-At Last

n

1982,

the

desire not

only

o

rectify

but to

forget

he mistreatment

f the

veterans

was

obvious. To

forget

his

pisode

in

American

history

s

not

only

to

negate

the

ongoing

struggles

f veterans-

those

who

are

ill or

dying

due to their

xposure

to

Agent Orange,

for

xample-but also to cease to examine the reasons

why

these men and women had been

scapegoated.

This

denial,

n

turn,

s

rrevocably

ied to

the

question

of

the

rupture

in

public

commemoration

caused

by

the Vietnam

War's difference rom other

wars,

and

the

possible

essons

to be learned from

t.

The

Healing

Wound

The

metaphor

of

the

healing

wound

thathas

prevailed

n

descriptions

of theVietnam VeteransMemorialand itseffect s a bodilymetaphor. t evokes

many

different odies-the bodies

of the Vietnam War

dead,

the bodies of the

veterans,

nd the

body

of the American

public.

The

memorial s

seen as

repre-

senting

wound

in

the

process

of

healing,

one thatwill

eave

a smooth

car

n

the

earth.

This wound

in

turn

represents

he

process

of

memory;

ts

healing

is the

process

of

remembering

nd

commemorating

he war.

To

dis-member

s

to

frag-

ment

a

body

and

its

memory;

o remember s

to make

a

body

complete.

In

war,

the

tiny,

ragile,

human

body

becomes

subject

to

dismemberment,

to a kind

of

antimemory.

he

absence

of these

bodies-obliterated,

enterred-

is botheclipsed and invokedbythe names on the memorial'swalls.The names

act as

surrogates

or he

bodies

(Lin

says

hat he

conceptualizes

he dead as

being

in

a

space

behind the

wall).

Yet the

bodies

of

the

iving

Vietnamveteranshave not

been

erased

of

memory.

Rather,

they

embody

personal

and cultural

memory;

theirbodies

are

those of survivors.

istory

has a

problematic elationship

o the

lived

body

of the individual

who

participated

n

it;

in

fact,

t

operates

more

effi-

ciently

when survivors

re

no

longer

alive. These

veterans'bodies-dressed

in

fatigues,

carred

and

disabled,

contaminated

by

toxins-refuse to let

historical

narratives

f

completion

tand.34Memories

of

the

war have been

deeply

encoded

in them,markedliterallynd figuratively

n

their

flesh-one

of

the

most

tragic

132

REPRESENTATIONS


17/26

aftermaths

f

the

war

s the

genetic

deformities

hat

Agent Orange

has caused

in

veterans'

hildren.

If

the

bodies

of the

surviving

eterans

resist he

closure of

history, hey

pro-

vide

a

perceptible

site

for a continual

remembering

f the war's effect.

laine

Scarrydescribeshow wounded casualties function s vehiclesformemorializa-

tion,

noting

thatthe act

of

injuring

s

not

only

the

means

by

which

winner nd

loser are

arrived at but

a

means

fproviding

record

f

ts wn

ctivity

emphasis

mine).35

he wound

gives

evidence

ofthe

act of

injuring,

or

Scarry

he

primary

object

of war.

The veterans'

healing process

has

involvedthe closure

of

individual

and

col-

lective

narratives

f the

war. But when

the

healing process

s ascribed

to a

nation,

the effect

s to efface

he

individual

bodies also

involved n that

process.

When

a

nation

heals

a

wound,

the wounds

of

individuals are subsumed

in its

healing.

Scarry

writes hat the

common

metaphor

of an

army

as a

singlebody

works

to

deny

the

body

ofthe ndividual oldier.Yetthesoldier's

body

that

carry

escribes

is the

wounded

body

of the conventional

rmy-the

army

f

fronts,

ears,flanks,

and arteries.

n

the Vietnam

War

the

army

was

not,

from he

beginning,

whole

body

but

a

body

of confused

signals,

of infiltrated

ases,

mistaken

dentities

nd

a

confusion

of allies

and

enemy.

n this

already

fragmented ody,

remembering

(that

s,

the wholeness

of the

body)

is

highly

roblematic.3

The Memorial

as Shrine

The Vietnam

Veterans

Memorial has been

the

subject

of an extraor-

dinary

outpouring

of sentiment ince

t was built.Over

150,000

people

attended

itsdedication

ceremony,

nd

some

days

as

many

s

20,000

people

walk

by

tswalls.

It is

presently

he

most visited

ite on

the

Washington

Mall.

The

memorial has

taken on

all of the

trappings

f a

religious

hrine-people bring

personal

artifacts

to leave

at the wall

as

offerings;

offee-table

ooks of

photography

ocument

the

experiences

of visitors

s

representing

collective

ecovery

rom he war.

It

has

also

spawned

the

design

or

construction

of at

least

150 other

memorials,

includingthe womenveterans'memorial and a memorialto the veteransof the

Korean

War.37

This

rush to embrace

the memorial

s

a cultural

ymbol

eveals

not

only

the

relief

of

voicing

a

history

hat has been

taboo but also

a

desire to reinscribe

hat

history.

he black

granite

wallsof the

memorial ct

as

a screenfor

myriad

ultural

projections;

s a site for

ontemplation,

t

s

easily ppropriated

fordiverse

nter-

pretations

f the

war

and of the

experience

of

those

who died

in

it.

To

the vet-

erans,

the wall is an atonement

for their reatment ince

the

war;

to

the families

and

friends

f

those who

died,

it s an

official

ecognition

f

their orrow

nd an

The

Wall,

he

creen,

nd

the

mage

133


18/26

FIGURE

1.

Memorial

tems

eft

t

the Vietnam

Veterans

Memorial.

Photo:

Wendy

Watriss.

opportunity

o

express

a

grief

hat

was

not

previously

anctioned;

to

others,

t

s

either a

profound

antiwar tatement r an

opportunity

o

rewrite he

history

f

the war to make

it

fit

more

neatly

into

the

master

narrative

of

American

imperialism.

The

memorial's

popularity

must

thus be seen

in

the

context

of

a

very

ctive

scripting

nd

rescripting

fthewarand as an

integral

omponent

ofthe

recently

emerged

Vietnam

War

nostalgia

ndustry.

his

nostalgia

s not

confined o

those

who

wish

to

return

o

the

ntensity

f

wartime;

t

s

also the

media's

nostalgia

for

itsown momentof

moral

power-the

VietnamWar

was,

shall we not

forget,

ery

good

television.

For

Michael

Clark,

the media

nostalgia

campaign

healed over

the wounds that had

refused

to

close for

ten

years

with

balm

of

nostalgia,

nd

transformed

uilt

nd

doubt nto

duty

nd

pride.

And

with

triumphant

lourish

it

offeredus the

spectacle

of

its most

successful

reation,

the

veterans who will

fight

he

next

war. 38

he rush to

reexamine

the Vietnam

War

is,

inevitably,

desire to

rescript

urrent

political

vents nd to

reinscribe

narrative

f

Amer-

ican imperialism,mostobviously nCentralAmerica and thePersianGulf.

As

the

healing

process

of

the Vietnam

War

s

transformednto

spectacle

and

commodity, complex

nostalgia ndustry

as

grown.

Numerous

magazines

that

reexamine

and

recount

Vietnam War

experiences

have

emerged;

the merchan-

dizing

of

Frederick

Hart's statue

(which

includes

posters,

T-shirts,

Franklin

Mint

miniature,

nd a

plastic

model

kit)

generates

about

$50,000

a

year,

half of

134

REPRESENTATIONS


19/26

which

goes

to

the

VVMF and half to

Hart;

and travel

agencies

are

marketing

toursto Indochina

forveterans.39n the hawkish

Vietnam

agazine,

between

rti-

cles that reexamine

incidents n the

war,

advertisements

isplay

a

variety

of

Vietnam War

products:

the Vietnam War CommemorativeCombat

Shotgun,

the

VietnamVeteransTriviaGame, Vietnam Warmedallions,posters,T-shirts, nd

calendars.

Needless

to

say,

he Vietnam

War s also now

big

business n both

tele-

vision drama

and

Hollywood

movies.

While

Maya

Lin's memorial

has

yet

to be made into a marketable

reproduc-

tion,

t

has functioned

s a

catalyst

ormuch

of this

nostalgia.

The

Vietnam Vet-

erans

Memorial is the

subject

of no fewer than six

books,

threeof which

are

photography

books.40

The memorial has

tapped

into

a reservoir

of need

to

express

n

public

the

pain

of this

war,

desireto transfer

rivate

memories

nto

a collective

xperience.

The

personal

artifactshat have been left t the

memo-

rial-photographs, letters, eddybears,MIA/POWbracelets, lothes,medals of

honor-are

offered

up

as

testimony,

ransposed

from

personal

to cultural arti-

facts,

o bear witness

o

pain

suffered

fig.

1).

Relinquished

before the

wall,

they

tell

many

stories:

We

did what

we

could

but t

was

not

nough

ecause found

you

here.

You are not

ust

a

name

on thiswall.

You are alive.You

are blood

on

my

hands.

You

are screams

n

my

ars.

You are

eyes

n

my

oul.

told

youyou'd

be all

right,

ut

lied,

nd

pleaseforgive

me.

see

your

ace

n

my

on,

can't ear

the

hought.

ou

toldme about

your

wife,

our

kids,

your

irl,

our

mother. nd then

you

died.

Your

pain

s

mine.

'll

never

orget our

ace.

I

can't.You are still live.

I didn'twant monument,ot venoneas sober s that ast lackwall f broken ives.

didn'twant

postage

tamp.

didn'twant road

beside heDelawareRiverwith

sign

proclaiming:

ietnam

Veterans

Memorial

Highway.

What wantedwas a

simple ecog-

nition f

the

imits f

our

power

s a nation o

nflict

ur

will n others.

What wanted

wasan

understanding

hat

heworld s

neither

lack-and-white

or

ours.What wanted

was

n end to monuments.4'

Many

of

these etters

re

addressed

not to visitors ut to the dead

(very

imilar

o

the texts

f the AIDS

quilt). They

are

messages

for

the dead that re intended

to

be shared as

cultural

memory.

The National ParkService,which s now nchargeofmaintaining he memo-

rial,

s

compiling

an archive

of the

materials eft t the memorial and is

storing

them

t the Museum and

Archaeological

Regional

Storage

facility

MARS).

Orig-

inally,

he Park Service

classified

hese

objects

as lost

and

found.

Later,

Park

Service

officials ealized

the

artifacts ad

been left

ntentionally,

nd

theybegan

to

save them.

The

objects

thus

moved

from

the

cultural status

of

being

lost

(without

ategory)

o historicalrtifacts.

hey

have

now even

been

transposed

nto

artistic

rtifacts;

he

curator

of the

collection t

MARS

writes:

These are no

longer

bjects

t the

Wall,

hey

re

communications,

cons

possessing

sub-

structurefunderpinningmotion. hey re theproductsfculture,nall ts omplexi-

The

Wall,

he

creen,

nd the

mage

135


20/26

ties.

hey

re the

products

f ndividualelection.With

ach

object

we

are

n

the

presence

of

a

work f art of ndividual

ontemplation.

he

thing

tself oes not

overwhelmur

attentionince hese re

objects

hat

re common nd

expendable.

t

theWall

hey

ave

become

nique

nd

rreplaceable,

nd

yes,mysterious.42

Labeled

mysterious

nd coded

as

original

worksof

art,

these

objects

are

given

value and

authorship. Many

were

left

anonymously,

r

simply

igned

with first

names,

and

some of

those

who

left

hem

have since been

traced

by

the

media and

book authors.

This

attempt

o tie these

objects

nd

letters o their

reators

Sturken, Vietnam Memorial

Documents

Transcript of Sturken, Vietnam Memorial