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=ucal8/10/2019 Sturken, Vietnam Memorial
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
8/10/2019 Sturken, Vietnam Memorial
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
8/10/2019 Sturken, Vietnam Memorial
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
8/10/2019 Sturken, Vietnam Memorial
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
8/10/2019 Sturken, Vietnam Memorial
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
8/10/2019 Sturken, Vietnam Memorial
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
8/10/2019 Sturken, Vietnam Memorial
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
8/10/2019 Sturken, Vietnam Memorial
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
8/10/2019 Sturken, Vietnam Memorial
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
8/10/2019 Sturken, Vietnam Memorial
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
8/10/2019 Sturken, Vietnam Memorial
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
8/10/2019 Sturken, Vietnam Memorial
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
8/10/2019 Sturken, Vietnam Memorial
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
8/10/2019 Sturken, Vietnam Memorial
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
8/10/2019 Sturken, Vietnam Memorial
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
8/10/2019 Sturken, Vietnam Memorial
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
8/10/2019 Sturken, Vietnam Memorial
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
8/10/2019 Sturken, Vietnam Memorial
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
8/10/2019 Sturken, Vietnam Memorial
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