The Memorial Space of Inclusion

the distinction between place and space, the first as a physical site and the second as location that exists first and foremost as an abstraction in one’s mind, has been the focus of works of foucault and de certeau. both foucault and de certeau described how the dualism of place and space works, and the role juxtaposition and stratification play in it. the famous comparison which recurs is that with the mirror, where the physical place and the image reflected are indissolubly connected and yet contradictory and disorienting. therefore they become a clear exemplification of the discourse actual and abstract.

the space of the rhetoric and the space of memory are also strictly connected. since antiquity memory and rhetoric were tied together through spatial connections. for instance it was a known technique in the ars rhetorica (as cicero and simonides attest in their works on the subject) to remember parts of a discourse by connecting them with visualization of spaces, however imaginary.

the memorial space brings together all these threads, the place and the space, the memory and the discursive, by embodying in a physical site an abstraction which has a strong rhetorical quality with the scope of perpetuating memory. the memorial space can be anything, something as banal as a private photography album in which images of ones family members are stored; in its most official forms it can assume extremely elaborate forms.

rhetoric is about delivering messages in not only in a fitting form and time, but also in a fitting space. to be passed on a message—in this case in the form on memory—has to be in accord with the society that generated it, conform to its rules and expectations. a message that is rhetorically effective has then to adhere to the culture that surrounds it. that is a reason racial minorities and women have been so commonly left out of the memorial discourse of the public spaces and have been instead relegated to the the memorial of the private sphere. out of the private sphere the rhetorical space of women and minorities has often been contested as inappropriate and as such it was rarely taken seriously by the public at large.

the cemetery represents however a memorial space that proved more inclusive than the norm. it in fact made it possible even to social strata of the population that have been historically forgotten or excluded to find a public rhetorical space which would represent them. with its being both commonplace—due to its customary use—and extraordinary—given to the stratification and complexity of uses and meanings that have been associated with it over time—the cemetery always represented a peculiarity among rhetorical spaces. which is why in theories as foucault’s heterotopology it had a specific relevance.

the inclusiveness of the cemetery is only possible because its symbolic values are seen as consistent with those its surrounding cultural practices. but being the cemetery also what foucault terms heterotopia, it is capable not only to reflect the society it refers to, but also to contest and invert its values. the heterotopian capability of subversion of the cemetery is partly due to its practical function (the bodies of women have to be disposed as much as the bodies of men), but it’s also due to its cultural function (mourning seen as predominantly feminine), which renders it the appropriate space for the discourse to come forward. examples as the monument of louisa maria wells by evelyn longman in lowell, ma, undermine and contest in that they draw a comparison with the long accepted patriarchal modes of representation of memory, and in doing so they cast a subversive suggestion on established practices. the nature of the space itself then made it historically possible for the cemetery to become a heterotopian site.

Source:
Wright, E. (2005). Rhetorical Spaces in Memorial Places: The Cemetery as a Rhetorical Memory Place/Space. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 35(4), 51-81.