Memorials and Monuments
What a Monument Forgets Is As Revealing As What It Remembers
Every monument is also an argument — a claim, usually made by the powerful, about which past deserves to exist in the present.
The Idea
We tend to think of monuments as neutral acts of preservation — gestures of respect toward history, fixed in bronze and granite. But a monument is a deeply political object. Someone chose what to commemorate, who to depict, which story to freeze in perpetuity. And crucially, that choice always displaces other choices. To build a statue of one person is to not build one of another. The philosopher Paul Connerton made a useful distinction between 'inscribed' and 'incorporated' memory — the first is formal, deliberate, institutional; the second lives in bodies, gestures, and habits. Monuments are pure inscription: they impose a meaning onto public space and then pretend that meaning is self-evident, timeless, above debate. The word 'monument' shares its Latin root with 'admonish' — monere, to warn or remind. A monument doesn't just record. It instructs. This is why contested monuments produce such heat. When a statue falls — or when a community argues about whether it should — what's actually happening is a negotiation over whose version of the past gets to shape the present. The statue was never just commemorating history. It was actively constructing a hierarchy of whose suffering counts, whose contribution matters, whose name echoes forward. Recognising this doesn't require cynicism. It just requires seeing monuments for what they actually are: one group's answer to the question of what we owe to the past — and who 'we' includes.
In the World
In 2016, the city of Leipzig in Germany quietly began a project that inverts the logic of the traditional monument. Rather than erecting new structures to honour victims of the Nazi period, the city installed 'Stolpersteine' — stumbling stones — small brass plaques set into the pavement outside the last freely chosen homes of people murdered by the regime. The project, conceived by artist Gunter Demnig in the 1990s, now spans over 30 countries and includes more than 100,000 individual stones. The effect is disorienting in the best way. You are walking normally and then, underfoot, you catch a name: 'Here lived Rosa Goldschmidt, born 1891, deported 1942, murdered in Auschwitz.' The stumbling is literal — you almost trip — and then metaphorical. History interrupts your ordinary day at street level, not on a plinth above your eyeline. Demnig's choice to install the stones where people actually lived, rather than where they died, insists on restoring individuality. The Nazi project depended on dehumanising mass abstraction. His counter-project insists on specificity: one name, one address, one person. And unlike a central memorial — which you visit, then leave — the Stolpersteine are woven into the city itself. You cannot avoid them. Memory becomes not a destination but a texture of daily life. The stones have also generated controversy, particularly in some Jewish communities, where the idea of placing victims' names on the ground — something to be stepped on — feels wrong. That argument is itself part of what makes the project valuable: it forces a genuine conversation about what remembrance is actually for.
Why It Matters
Most of us will never commission a monument, but we participate in collective memory in smaller ways constantly — through what we choose to read, share, teach our children, or defend in conversation. Understanding that monuments are arguments, not facts, sharpens the same instinct everywhere. It also reframes the debates around statues that feel so exhausting when they turn purely tribal. The question isn't simply 'was this person good or bad?' It's: what does permanent public commemoration imply? To place someone on a plinth in a city square is to say their presence in public life should continue, should shape how residents move through their own city. That's a live claim, not a historical one. More personally: recognising that all cultural memory involves selection invites you to ask what you might be forgetting — or what stories you've absorbed as neutral history that are actually someone's particular argument. The gaps in what we collectively remember are often more revealing than the monuments we've built to fill them.
A Question to Ponder
If your own neighbourhood were to build a single new monument today — not to a historical figure, but to a value or experience you think deserves to persist — what would you choose, and who would disagree with you?
Get a new one of these every morning.
Start learning with Thinkable