Memorials: Physical Structures and Living Memorials

For a great many people, having a structure or space which remembers the conflict is of great importance. For some a memorial is simply a place to go to direct their grief and suffering, perhaps as an alternative to a grave, whilst others need a place to reflect upon the past and consider the future. Many people who engaged with the Group were positive about the healing quality of memorials; others considered the way in which memorialisation has taken place in Northern Ireland to be divisive, only serving to perpetuate sectarianism.

Northern Ireland, and indeed the Republic of Ireland, has numerous memorials to those who have died or been injured in the conlict over the last 40 years. However, most of these memorials serve only limited sections of society. They therefore tend to encourage remembering in a disparate way, which some argue is not conducive to achieving reconciliation. They therefore suggest there is a case to be made for Northern Ireland having a shared memorial. This perspective is challenged by those who argue that a shared memorial is only appropriate, and can only be effective, if a shared grief exists.

The issue of a shared memorial is clearly one that is extremely controversial.

However, memorialising is itself a contested idea. As with Storytelling and the Day of Reflection, there remains a view that such initiatives in general are unhelpful, directing individuals within society to look backwards rather than forwards. Others believe that remembering is a natural instinct and at its best a means of turning towards the future with better understanding of ourselves, our strengths and weaknesses, the good that we all do, and the bad.

Physical Structures

Traditionally memorials in Northern Ireland have taken the form of physical structures, such as monuments, statues or wall-mounted plaques. The tangible and permanent element of these kinds of memorials has been cited as reason for their popularity, reassuring many people that neither their successes nor their loss or suffering will be ignored or forgotten. Examples cited include an unfinished sculpture to symbolise the ongoing process of reconciliation.

Another form of physical memorial commonly established in Northern Ireland is a garden of remembrance. This is perhaps the most popular form of physical remembrance in terms of proposals made during the consultation, with many people advocating the peaceful nature of gardens as highly conducive to personal reflection and remembrance. Where people had specific objections with regard to existing gardens of remembrance, this was usually as a result of the inclusion of a plaque, which brought with it all the related difficulties including with names and inscriptions. Many people suggested that, if Northern Ireland was to have a shared memorial, then a unified garden of remembrance would be their preferred form.

Living Memorials

There are several examples of living interactive memorials in and around Northern Ireland with many more being recommended by various groups. Many who favour a living memorial suggest that a museum would be the most appropriate form, as it would combine education and remembering.

Some suggested that the conflict should be considered in the context of the wider history of Ireland, North and South, and advocated a dedicated ‘Troubles’ exhibition in an existing museum. As with many issues related to remembering, the idea of a memorial museum overlaps with the topic of storytelling, as personal stories may form an integral part of a ‘Troubles’ museum. Other suggestions were that a living memorial could take the form of a hospital, a trauma centre, educational facility or possibly a centre for conflict transformation.

Unlike physical monuments or sculptures, such memorials require active management and supervision. Who would be best placed to manage such a memorial could be another source of contention.

The Group does not believe that a shared memorial can be agreed at this time. It remains a contentious issue for many and poses many challenging issues around which we could not see any consensus. Who should the memorial commemorate? Should it have names inscribed and if so, whose names? What should the form of wording be? What form should the memorial itself take? Is the cost feasible when there are so many
other demands on the public purse? Who should have access to the shared memorial? Where should it be located?

It should, however, remain under consideration by the Reconciliation Forum detailed in Chapter 8. A number of criteria should be observed in working towards a shared memorial conducive to reconciliation.
Firstly, a memorial should direct people to the future and in particular a shared and reconciled future. If, therefore, the decision to establish a shared memorial was taken, this memorial should commemorate the impact of the conflict on all of society and need not be prescriptive by including names or categories of people who are to be remembered. Such a memorial should be created in a way that is respectful of the past and the sacrifices made by many in society, whilst also looking forward. In order to capture this, serious consideration should be given to any memorial being a living memorial.

Whilst a shared memorial should help in bringing people from all sides of the
community towards a shared acknowledgement of one another’s suffering, the difficulties that some groups of people may have in sharing physical space must also be acknowledged. Therefore, before a shared memorial can be created, the issue of sharing space must be given further thought in order that people are not immediately alienated from the memorial or adversely affected by it. Equally, those who wish to erect public memorials, which commemorate a particular group or community within society, should be encouraged, when considering its nature, to do so in a way which takes account of the perspectives of those likely to encounter the memorial.

Similarly, in establishing a shared memorial, an important element to be considered should be its voluntary and unimposing nature. As a general rule, it should be an uplifting structure that commemorates the past without glorifying it and one that demonstrates how our society has changed.