Memorial Assemblages: An Actor-Network Theory Account of Collective Memory, Commemoration and the National Holocaust Monument in Canada by Jordan Andrew Todd A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Affairs in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Master of Arts In Sociology Carleton University Ottawa, Ontario © 2016 Jordan A. Todd Abstract Memory studies scholars often argue that the concept of collective memory is disparate and ambiguous, lacking theoretical and methodological development. Given this, the often studied relationship between physical memorials and collective remembrance remains problematic. Accordingly, this thesis draws on Actor-Network Theory (ANT), an approach that largely resides outside of memory studies literature, in order to situate memorials and monuments within a tenable analytical framework of collective memory. The utility of this framework is demonstrated through an empirically-based analysis of the National Holocaust Monument project in Ottawa, Canada. Rather than posit a fixed definition of collective memory, the aim is to treat collective remembrance as something that is enacted through and ultimately an effect of heterogeneous networks of material- semiotic relationships. It is argued that when it is taken as such, the role of the monument within collective remembrance becomes more attributable and coherent in regards to broader mnemonic processes.   i Acknowledgements I would like to sincerely thank Dr. Michael Mopas and Dr. Stacy Douglas for their guidance, support, and most importantly, their insightful and invaluable feedback on my work. They have helped me to become a better theorist and researcher and for that I am indebted. As well, I would like to thank Dr. Monica Patterson (internal examiner). I am also grateful to several faculty members at Carleton University who have had a significant influence on my intellectual journey over the past few years: Dr. William Walters, Dr. Bruce Curtis, Dr. Justin Paulson, and Dr. Janet Siltanen. As well, I would like to express my sincere thanks to Dr. Katherine Watson, Dr. Chantelle Marlor, Dr. Darren Blakeborough, Dr. Ron Dart, Dr. Hamish Telford, and Stephen Piper. Their early investment in my intellectual and academic life have been inestimable and I will always remember the encouragement they provided. I would also like to show appreciation for Dr. Nicholas Rowland and Dr. Stefanie Fishel, who willingly and constructively engaged with some of the ideas that have come out of this thesis. To my peers, Alex Luscombe, Jordon Tomblin, and Jacob Forrest: our reading groups and discussions were thought-provoking and congenial, and your helpful criticisms of my work were indispensable. I would like to acknowledge the financial, technical, and academic support of Carleton University and the Social Sciences and Research Council of Canada. A special thanks to Paula Whissell, who provided guidance and support in all things administrative. Last but certainly not least, to all of my family and friends who have supported me throughout my academic pursuits, I cannot express how much I have appreciated your company and succor. To Randall, you were of seminal importance to the substantive focus of this thesis and therefore I am indebted. And of course, Denae, you have seen me through misery and excitement, the highs and lows that were inevitable by-products of this thesis, so thank you for your sustained affirmation. This thesis is dedicated to all of you.   ii Table of Contents Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... i   Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... ii   List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... iv   List of Appendices ......................................................................................................................... v   1   Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1   1.1 Memorials and Collective Memory ............................................................................................. 2   1.2 Research Question ........................................................................................................................ 6   1.3 Thesis Structure ............................................................................................................................ 7   2   Collective Memory as Actor-Networks ............................................................................. 10   2.1 Collective Memory – Unit of Analysis ...................................................................................... 11   2.2 Collective Memory – Complexity .............................................................................................. 17   2.3 Collective Memory – Monuments ............................................................................................. 20   2.4 Actor-Network Theory ............................................................................................................... 23   2.4.1 Moments of Translation ........................................................................................................ 30   2.5 Collective Memory and Actor-Network Theory ...................................................................... 32   3   Research Design and Method ............................................................................................ 38   3.1 Access to Information Requests as a Means of Data Production ........................................... 44   3.2 Positioning Documents in Social Research ............................................................................... 46   3.3 Some Abiding Methodological Philosophy ............................................................................... 47   4   Ordering Heterogeneous Networks ................................................................................... 50   4.1 The National Holocaust Monument: A Brief Overview .......................................................... 51   4.2 Problematization: Narrative Ordering and Nationalizing the Holocaust ............................. 56   4.2.1 From the never: an obligation to remember .......................................................................... 59   4.2.2 Through the never: an obligation to recognize present threats ............................................. 62   4.2.3 To the never: an obligation to act in the future ..................................................................... 64   4.2.4 The National Holocaust Monument and Canada’s Military Identity .................................... 67   4.2.5 The interdefinition of the actors ............................................................................................ 70   4.3 The Devices of Interessement: How Allies Are Persuaded to Join ........................................ 77   4.4 Enrollment: The NCC and the Circulation of Documents, Emails and Presentations ............. 86   4.4.2 The design competition: how can a national monument be international? ........................... 96   4.5 The Mobilization of Allies: Setting Up Strings of Intermediaries ........................................ 104   4.6 Translation Becomes Treason: Redesign and Delay ............................................................. 108   4.7   Translation Summary ........................................................................................................... 110   5   Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 115   5.1   The National Holocaust Monument Project and Collective Remembrance .................... 118   5.1 Limitations of Study and Avenues for Future Research ....................................................... 119   5.2 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 120   Appendices: ............................................................................................................................... 121   Appendix A - Timeline of NHM Project Events .............................................................................. 121   Appendix B - Figures .......................................................................................................................... 123   References .................................................................................................................................. 131     iii List of Figures Figure 1 Map of Location (National Holocaust Monument) ..………………......113 Figure 2 Strategic Communications Plan …........………………....………....….114 Figure 3 Ordered Knowledge of the Holocaust ...…………………………...…..115 Figure 4 Model of Design ...........…........…........……...………………...............116 Figure 5 Mobilization Diagram ....….....…...………...…………………………..117 Figure 6 Images Demonstrating Design Changes ………...………………....…..118 Figure 7 Critical Path Document………………………………………………....119 Figure 8 Visualization of Ordering Process……………………………………...120   iv List of Appendices Appendices………………………………………………………………………….....111 Appendix A – Timeline of NHM Project Events ………………………………......111 Appendix B – Figures ………….....………………………………………………...113   v 1 Introduction On 12 May 2014, Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird announced the chosen design for Canada’s National Holocaust Monument (NHM) at the National War Museum in Ottawa. Designed by a team led by internationally renowned architect Daniel Libeskind, the NHM will be the largest and most complicated monument created in the capital city since the National War Memorial built in 1939 (Butler 2015). One of the few commemorations to be legislated through Parliament, it has received approximately 4 million dollars of funding from the Government of Canada, a total that has been at least matched through private fundraising (NHMDC 2013). Since the unveiling of the design, construction of the monument has begun on the corner of Wellington and Booth streets, symbolically located across from the National War Museum (NWM). It is scheduled to be unveiled in 2017. Due to its considerable size and cost, as well as its location in the carefully managed capital region, the NHM is of remarkable symbolic national significance. Further adding to its salience, the project enjoyed an atypical amount of direct government involvement. The Bill responsible for legislating the project was taken up in the House, Senate, and in various committees on and off from September 2009 until March 2011 when it received Royal Assent and became law. After it was legislated, the Conservative government kept close to the project with all major decisions having to be cleared by the Foreign Affairs Minister. Both the legislative process and the ruling government’s direct involvement are uncharacteristic of the commemorative process, as proposals for new memorials are typically made by individuals and groups directly to the   1 National Capital Committee (NCC), the corporation whose job it is to manage the federal lands in Canada’s Capital Region (Chalmers 2013:66; NCC 2016). Regardless, the monument project was put through the legislative process where it received unanimous support in the House and Senate. As the leader of the opposition at the time put it, “the very act of planning this monument, building it, having it in our capital makes it significant. The idea is so simple that we have to ask why no one thought of it before? It is never too late to do something good” (Mulcair, Canada 2010a:6982). 1.1 Memorials and Collective Memory Holocaust monuments, like the NHM, are products of their national milieus (Young 1993; Linenthal 2001; Alexander 2002; Engelhardt 2002; Carrier 2005).1 Within these settings, “Holocaust memorials inevitably mix national and Jewish figures, political and religious imagery”, often assuming “the idealized forms and meanings assigned by the state” (Young 1993:2). More broadly, contemporary state-sponsored commemorations are bound up in processes of political and state legitimization (Mitchell 2003:443; Carrier 2005:38; Hite and Collins 2009:380), as they act to mediate political landscapes and distinguish specific symbols that promote collective memory, identity and history (McDowell and Braniff 2014:15). As sites where collective memory is cultivated, state-sponsored memorials engage in “the fabrication, rearrangement, elaboration, and omission of details about the past, often pushing aside accuracy and authenticity so as to accommodate broader issues of identity formation, power and authority, and political affiliation” (Zelizer 2000:3). Often, this is done through the use of historical narratives which are an important part of 1 Following Young (1993) the terms ‘memorial’ and ‘monument’ are used interchangeably to refer to the NHM as well as more generally to monuments that are oriented towards remembrance (3). As well, the   2 creating a shared sense of the past founded on a collective feeling of belonging (Brescó and Wagoner 2016:72). Further, the collective memories (as well as the collective identities and histories implied by these memories) that are constituent of state-sponsored memorials help build and reinforce the imagined political community that is the nation (Anderson 2006:6). However, it is difficult to assess the role the memorials play in collective remembering since the concept of collective memory itself is rather ambivalent. A primary reason for this ambiguity is due to the fact that within memory studies there has yet to be a theoretical framework that successfully operationalizes the concept of collective memory (Olick 2007:85; Hirst & Manier 2008:183). Even when attempts are made at defining what is ‘collective’ about memory, it is often unclear what scholars exactly mean (Gillis 1994:3; Hirst & Manier 2008:183). Further, even when definitions are clearly stated there is often disagreement over them (Winter & Sivan, 1999; K.L. Klein 2000; Wertsch 2002:34). In other words, though collective memory has acted as an organizing principle for academic research, the concept has arguably not been properly delineated. For these reasons, the concept of collective memory presents itself as a quagmire that should be addressed in research that addresses memorialization. In response to the issues surrounding the definition of collective memory some have treated it exclusively as an organic metaphor regarding traditional communities (Novick 1999:267). Others have gone as far as to argue that the concept should be altogether abandoned (Gedi &Elam 1996), or that it is inappropriate to treat a ‘fundamentally individual’ phenomenon as a collective occurrence (Fentress and Wickham 1992:1). Sociologist and collective memory scholar Jeffery Olick has   3 suggested that we move beyond attempts to define, reify, and over-totalize collective memory (2007:89), and instead, he encourages researchers to treat collective memory as a ‘sensitizing’ concept rather than as an operational one (2007:85).2 As a sensitizing concept, collective memory points to “a wide variety of mnemonic processes, practices, and outcomes, neurological, cognitive, personal, aggregated, and collective” (2007:34). Put differently, collective memory as a sensitizing concept points to a variety of phenomena and processes that can make up collective remembering. This is in contrast to an operational definition of collective memory that acts to strictly demarcate what collective memory is and is not. Understanding memory as a variety of processes rather than as a thing in itself is a response to criticisms of both memory studies and sociology more generally – that some researchers have tended to reify their object of study. Such reifications are a result of certain sociological tendencies to take a substantialist approach (Cassirer 1953) to studying phenomena in which processes are often reduced to static conditions (Elias 1978), material objects, or outcomes (Forest et. al. 2004:374; Stone 2013:168). This is problematic since phenomena are often then abated to static conditions or states that separate them from their involvement within the processes that help constitute them. According to Olick, in order to avoid these inclinations, the analytical goal of collective memories studies should be: [T]o understand figurations of memory – developing relations between past and present – where images, contexts, traditions, and interests come 2 Issues surrounding the defining of collective memory have been largely rooted in attempts to operationalize the phenomena: to clearly define the extent and measurement of the concept. In contrast, when a concept is treated as a sensitizing one, it lacks the burden of strict definition and measurement. Instead, a sensitizing concept points to a wide range of phenomena while encouraging research to explore beyond rigid operationalization.   4