Sun, Dec 16, 2007 page8

• Change the name, keep the history

  • By Fan Yun 范雲
  • • 
    • 
    • 

  A PLACE GLORIFYING an authoritarian politician in the heart of the capital of a democratic society is an anachronism. After the government changed the name of the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall to the National Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall, the conflict shifted to pan-blues and pan-greens fighting about the removal of the characters dazhong zhizheng (大中至正). However, the more important question might be: What kind of Pandora's box has been opened with this new conflict?

  All new democracies with a history of authoritarian rule must find a way to deal with society's conflicting memories.

  Transforming "Chiang Kai-shek's [蔣介石] Temple" does not just involve the future use of a place and a square, but also memories of the history that are connected to the place, which people want to take with them as they move into a new era.

  When politicians say that they want to change a place so laden with political significance, the question that arises is: What thoughts and feelings would this arouse in the public? Are the process and the goals of the changes to touch upon different memories of history and realize a broader vision for the future? How should a place that was built to glorify Chiang be remembered in a democratic era?

  Changing "Chiang Kai-shek's Temple" cannot be achieved by a quick erasure of still living memories of the authoritarian era. Wiping out memories is like telling everyone that it's all over, but in the hearts of many people in Taiwan, everything is not over yet. The process of taking down the characters dazhong zhizheng from the memorial's front gate shows that the history and memories of the authoritarian era have not really cleared up.

  We have neglected history, and left the history of the authoritarian era to rot in the dark corners of archives, awaiting our understanding and recognition. Because of this, the transformation of the memorial hall, a legal administrative procedure, became nothing more than the violent obliteration of memories.

  How should we handle the symbolic transformation of places that have so many sentiments attached to them, when the history of the authoritarian era is not yet cleared up?

  When the majority of the public has a real understanding of the history of Chiang and his authoritarian regime on this land, we should have faith that Taiwan will want a more profound memorial landmark. There, through spiritual cleansing, we will be able to see the dignity we had lost, the harm that we had suffered, and in witnessing this pain we will see the hope that we have held on to and the power it generated.

  Of course, no public spaces that are associated with conflicting memories of history can avoid political confrontations from opposing interests. Some new democracies, however, are wiser than others, managing to open the Pandora's box of the authoritarian past and make it the first step in the reconstruction of memories in society. Perhaps the form of a memorial space brought forth by a process of democratic dialogue would not be very special, but through the new interpretation bestowed to it, it has a better chance to win the sympathy of the public.

  Through civil discussions that will allow the public to gain a clearer perspective on recent history, we may decide that we want to keep the places left over from the authoritarian era -- but give them another layer of meaning. Maybe the bronze statue still standing in the Memorial Hall is important. The sheer size of the statue can remind us once again how this authoritarian government humiliated the people.

  The space below the statue could be made into a museum commemorating the many victims of the regime. When we go to the space below the hall, we can feel how this dictatorship suppressed so many innocent young lives.

  Perhaps we should leave a symbolic piece of wall standing to commemorate the war and the people who where forced to leave their homes and rely on an authoritarian leader for temporary protection and peace. Perhaps we will rename the memorial square, because protesters have turned the place that used to be the symbolic core of the authoritarian regime into a square for the people who fought for freedom and democracy.

  When confronted with the Chiang Kai-shek era, our society experiences conflicts, but can these experiences of spatial transformation act like a mirror, reflecting the thoughts of each visitor who reflects upon the relationship between the individual and this authoritarian history? Plaza de Mayo in Buenos Aires is a place where the military dictatorship that ruled Argentina had oppressed the people, but it is also the site of many popular protests. In the end, the Argentines decided that a place so full of historical significance should not be destroyed and rebuilt, but instead be invested with new layers of significance.

  Transforming a memorial space with the goal of giving it a democratic name is meaningless if it is accomplished by an undemocratic process. In a democracy, memories cannot be determined by voting, they must be actively reinterpreted in a dialogue centering on truth, understanding and the people.

  If the process of transforming a public space that has a lot of conflicting meaning in modern Taiwanese history is successfully undertaken, the memories it evokes can have a strong appeal to every ethnic group.

  I hope that in the future, when we walk into the memorial hall, it can make every one of us, regardless of age, ethnicity or identity, feel that we have the power and the chance to face a future together.

  Fan Yun is an assistant professor of sociology at National Taiwan University.

  Translated by Anna Stiggelbout
• Most Popular

  • 1

    TSMC cannot make 2nm chips abroad now: MOEA

  • 2

    Videos about Taiwan upset China: source

  • 3

    Taiwan in Time: The rise and fall of Taipei’s sky bridges

  • 4

    Potential tropical storm could affect Taiwan: CWA

  • 5

    First new MRT line train arrives