Rhetoric Society of America
Reproducing Civil Rights Tactics: The Rhetorical Performances of the Civil Rights Memorial
Author(s): Carole Blair and Neil Michel
Source: Rhetoric Society Quarterly, Vol. 30, No. 2 (Spring, 2000), pp. 31-55
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3886159 .
Accessed: 05/10/2011 00:06
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
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].
Taylor & Francis, Ltd. and Rhetoric Society of America are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Rhetoric Society Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org
Carole Blair and Neil Michel
CivI
REPRODUCING
RIGHTSTACTICS:THE RHETORICAL
PERFORMANCESOF THE CIVIL RIGHTS MEMORIAL
Abstract:Theauthorsoffera readingof the CivilRights Memorial(MayaLin,
Montgomery,Alabama, 19.89)as a set of rhetoricalperformancesthat reproduce the tactical dimensions of Civil Rights Movementprotests of the 1950s
and 1960s. Their reading attemptsto counter the reading of Abramsonwho
claimsfor the Memoriala conservativepolitical stance. Specifically,theyargue that, while the Memorial reproducesthe tactics of the CivilRightsMovement, it arguesfor a break with the past in its visual proffer of a politics of
differenceand a critique of whiteness.
Perhapsthe very first thing we need to do as a nation and as individual
membersof society is to confrontourpast and see it for whatit is. It is a
past that is filled with some of the ugliest possible examples of racial
brutalityand degradationin humanhistory. We need to recognize it for
whatit was andis andnot explain it away,excuse it, orjustify it. Having
done that, we should then make a good-faith effort to turn our history
aroundso that we can see it in front of us, so that we can avoid doing
what we have done for so long. (Franklin74)
Whatseems called for now and whatmany contemporaryartistswish to
provide is a critical public art that is frankabout the contradictionsand
violence encoded in its own situation,one that dares to awakena public
sphereof resistance,struggle, and dialogue. (Mitchell 395)
T he Civil RightsMemorial,locatedin Montgomery,Alabama,anddedicated
in 1989, enjoyed its tenth anniversarythis past November. The Memorial
was commissionedby, and composes the frontentranceplaza of, the Southern
PovertyLaw Center (SPLC), a not-for-profitorganizationfoundedin 1971 by
Morris Dees and Joe Levin.' The Memorial was designed by Maya Lin, the
architectbest known for her design of theVietnamVeteransMemorial,in Washington, D.C.2 Although the Civil Rights Memorial is located in Montgomery,
and thus removed from the most well-worn tourist trails of the nation, it has
received considerableattentionin the media, because of events thathave been
staged at its site, the fame of its designer, and the high public profile of the
SPLCandDees sincethe mid-1980s(Southern Poverty Law Center). It is an
importantculturalmarkernot only because of the attentionit has received, but
also because of its rhetoric-its representationsand enactmentsof racial dynamics of the past, present,and future.
31
RSQ: RhetoricSociety Quarterly
Volume 30, Number 2 Spring 2000
32
RHETORICSOCIETYQUARTERLY
Our goal is to offer a reading of the Civil Rights Memorial as a rhetorical
performance,or more precisely, as an ensemble of interrelatedperformances
thatrewritethe Civil RightsMovementof the 1950s and 1960s for the late twentieth-centuryU.S.3 Specifically,we will suggest that the Memorial'srhetorical
performancesreproducethe tactics of Civil Rights activities of the mid-century,
but that these re-productionswork towarda commentaryon race issues of the
presentand open up possibilities for politics, ratherthan advancinga summary
or unitary stance. Our readingis based not only upon an interpretationof the
Memorial's design (includingits inscribedtext) but also upon its contexts.4
Ourfocus here on the Civil Rights Memorialis motivated,in part,by Daniel
Abramson'sclaim thatMayaLin's memorials(the VietnamVeteransMemorial,
the Women's Table at Yale University,and the Civil Rights Memorial) harbor
fundamentallyconservativepolitical messages, largely as a result of what he
sees as their sharedcentralfeature-inscribed timelines. Althoughallowing for
the possibility of reading the Lin memorials as "potentiallytransformative,"
Abramsonclearlyfavorsa differentinterpretation.He suggests ratherdisparagingly that Maya Lin's memorials"repackagethe difficult, the divisive, and the
controversialinto loci of popularsatisfactionand conciliation"(705); represent
a "conservativeposition"on 1960s political,social, and artisticmovements;and
"reestablishpoints of traditionalauthority"(707). Specifically with regardto
the Civil Rights Memorial,he suggests that "the civil rights struggle is represented as being, in effect, about the authorityand legitimacy of the American
Constitutionand its legal and political instruments(an appropriateprogramfor
a monumentsponsoredby a law firm)"(701).5 However,we are convinced that
a rhetoricalreading-one thatattendsnot only to multipledesign featuresof the
Memorial,but also to its materialperformancesandforce withinits context(s)suggests a conclusion quite different than that renderedin Abramson's more
formalistreading.
We believe it is importantto heed and respond to Abramson'sreading for
threereasons. First,criticalcommentaryis one means by which "the"meaning
of a public artworkis establishedculturally(Foucault, "Discourse"220-221).
That is, interpretationslike Abramson's(or our own) can be appropriatedand
used in more public, if often unofficial, interpretiveoperations. They seep into
publicdiscourse andbecome "correct"ways of readingculturalartifactsor sites.
We believe it would be unfortunateif Abramson'srenderingwere taken as the
final word on the Civil Rights Memorial.
Second, in consideringwhat Abramson'sreading overlooks-vital dimensions of the Civil Rights Memorial that participatein composing its political
message-we can attendto issues of materialityin rhetoricthat are becoming
increasingly salient.6 Abramsonsuggests, inexplicably in our view, that "the
physical compositionof the monumentfunctionsnot so much to convey meaning in and of itself as to createa physical space of reading.... It is left to the text
itself andits graphicarrangement
to convey the specific messageof the memorial"
BLAIR,
MICHEL/REPRODUCING
CIVIL
RIGHrs
TACTICS
33
(692). By "text'"Abramson clearly means the inscriptions on the stone of the
Memorial, so his reading acknowledges but leaves uninterpretedthe physical
profile and spatialdimensions of the Memorial.
Abramsonalso neglects the specific operations of the geographical/cultural
contexts of the Memorial. Left aside are the Memorial's physical locale, the
historical events it marks, and its placementin a national culturesaturatedby
racial anxiety. To read the Lin memorials"as a suite of work"(680) seems a
worthyproject,but that move necessarilyshifts the critical stakesfrom the rhetoricalworkeach monumentdoes to MayaLin's signaturepoliticalaesthetic. In
sum, to juxtaposeAbramson's readingand the one we proposehere is to call
attentionto issues of rhetoricalmaterialityat two levels: (1) the materialconditions, contexts, and other discourses that articulatewith a given rhetoricalartifact, and (2) the materialityof the rhetoricalartifactitself (Blair16). If we wish
to understandthe messages availablein the Civil Rights Memorial,it surely is
wise to heed Abramson'sclaims but also to add to them, for thereis much more
to attendandrespondto in this importantculturalsite thana timelinethatteaches
a conservativelesson.
Third,we believe a closer look at the Memorial and ways of reading it are
warrantedbecause of the specifics of its response to one of the most profound
rhetoricalchallenges faced in the design of any commemorativesite: how to
make an event of the past-what the memorial marks-relevant to the needs
and desiresof the memorial's own present. That is a profoundlyrhetoricalchallenge, andan understandingof its dynamicis unavailable in a formalistreading
that bases its claims exclusively on the engraved words on a memorial.7
Abramson'sclaims about the Memorialparticipate in a largerdiscourse that
questionswhetherpublic art-specifically public commemorativeart-can ever
performa rhetoricalfunction beyond stabilizationand reinforcementof the status quo (Abramson 709).8 If we answer with Abramson's (only delicately quali-
fied) "no,"then we are faced with a very serious rhetoricalmatter:a genre that
offers no openings for difference or resistance. We find thatnot only unlikely
but inaccuratein the case of public commemorativeart.
We will begin with a brief discussion of the micropolitics of the Southern
Civil Rights Movement, in orderto highlight its tactical-levelpractices. Then
we will turnto a descriptive "tour"of the Civil Rights Memorialsite, followed
by a discussionof its performativereproductionof the Movement'stactics. We
will conclude with a reconsiderationof the political messages harboredby the
Memorial, suggesting that it enacts the kind of political stance suggested by
FranklinandMitchell in the passages that stand at the beginningof this essay.
TACTICAL DIMENSIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS PROrEST ACTIONS
The sit-insandprotestmarchesof the 1950s and 1960s CivilRightsMovement
surely were multidimensionalin theirrhetoricalcharacterandcapacity,but the
specificallytacticalnatureof these actionscarriedparticularmessagesthathelped
34
RHETORICSOCIETYQUARTERLY
to compose the largerCivil Rightsposition. Ouraim in describingthemhere is
not encyclopedic but selective, not exhaustivebut partial. Insteadof focusing
on what the protestrhetoricmeant,we examineits materialdimension-what it
did. Specifically, these protest actions disrupted(peacefully) the ordinaryactivities of towns, businesses, and citizens. They also announcedthe resilience
and determinationof those pledged to civil rights. And they situatedthe individual observer as the agent of change, by placing their cause-and the often
cruel counter-reaction-visually and materiallyin the space of the everyday.9
First,Civil Rightsactions-sit-ins especially,butalso boycottsandmarchesinfringed upon or inconveniencedthe space of the everyday, of "business as
usual," so as to call attentionto the participantsand their political and moral
claims to justice. King describedthe tacticaldimensionexplicitly in his "Letter
from BirminghamCity Jail,"in 1963: "Nonviolentdirect action seeks to create
such a crisis and establish such creativetensionthat a communitythathas constantlyrefusedto negotiateis forcedto confrontthe issue" (40).10 The point was
to get in the way. As Chalmerssuggests, "The later experiences of SNCC in
Mississippi andin southwesternGeorgia,whereit wasjoined in Albanyby King
and the SCLC in 1962, stronglyindicatedthat 'out of the streets' was 'out of
mind"'(23). To counter that tendency,Civil Rights groups enacted a material
politics, "the use of the 'black body' against prejudice" (Rustin 337) 11
of theirparticipants,
andthey
Second,the protestsannouncedthe determination
did thatby perseveringover time. This displayof tenacitywas vital,for as Chong
argues,any breachin the visibleexpositionof resolvewould send"anencouraging
signal to the oppositionand [harm]the interestsof the group"(18). The activists'
determinationhadto be overtlymaintained,sometimesfor weeks or months,often
in the face of taunts,harassment,andbeatings,as well as threatsof arrestor even
death. The performanceof suchresolutepurposeservedas a demonstrative
proof
thattheactivistswouldnotbe discouragedeasily,thattheyandtheircausewouldnot
just convenientlydisappear.Buttheirmaintenanceof the collectivefrontin theface
of brutaloppositionreinforcedthatargument,servingnotice thatthe demonstrators would not be intimidated,because theircause was so consequential.
Third,the Civil Rights Movementin the South sought change by moralizing
the individualandpositioningher/himas the agentof change. Thereis no doubt
thatthe Movement sought governmentalandlegal remedy;Civil Rights leaders
worked directly to persuade those in positions of institutionalauthority,e.g.,
presidents,congresspersons,governors,local officials, and so forth."2But the
visible, public organizingwas aimedat the quotidian,and the aim was notjust to
persuadevoters to pressureofficials, but also to change themselves. As James
Lawson arguedwith regardto sit-ins,
the issue is not integration.... [I]t would be extremely short-sightedto
assume thatintegrationis the problemor the word of the 'sit-in.' In the
first instance, we who are demonstratorsare trying to raise what we call
BLAIR, MICHE1JREPRODUCING CivILRIGHTSTACrICS
35
the 'moral issue.' That is, we are pointing to the viciousness of racial
segregation and prejudice and calling it evil or sin. The matter is not
legal, sociological or racial, it is moral and spiritual.(312)
The sacrificeand sufferingenduredby the demonstratorswere considered (and
were, in some quarters)influential. As King argued,"Suffering. . . has tremendous educational and transformingpossibilities" ("Pilgrimage"110). Or, as
Chong suggests in less manifestly moral terms, "Fromthe protesters'perspective, it is obvious that theirbest outcome is realized when they choose nonviolence while the authoritiesuse unjustifiedforce. A nonviolent strategy works
only if the protestersare seen as blameless victims" (22).
Each of these tactics worked by means of a visual performanceor display.
The materialpresence and visibility of the demonstrators,as well as of their
opponents,was the crucialelement. The Civil Rights Movementdisrupted,displayed its own resolve, and moralizedindividuals as change agents by compelling shifts in attitudesbased on the seen. For example,the neatly-dressed,polite
AfricanAmericandemonstratorswere visible, as were theiroften brutish,white
supremacistopponents. The visual juxtapositionreversedhistoricallyaccreted,
stereotypicalimages of AfricanandEuropeanAmericansandtheirrelativeabilities to engage civilly. As Cmiel argues,"theboycotts, sit-ins, and marcheswere
strategicdramasoutside the purview of daily decorumthat inverted the social
order. Whereas the caste system of the South had been built on the supposed
superior'civilization' of whites and the 'backwardness'of blacks, the [protest
activities]turnedthis around"(267). While Movementleadersand lawyers argued the case, the demonstrationscreatedscenes for performingit.
THE CIVIL RIGHTS MEMORIAL
Beforeturningto theCivil RightsMemorial'sreproductionof these Movement
tactics,a brief tour of the site is in order.The Memorialis located in downtown
Montgomery,on the plaza frontingthe SPLC office building,a modernwhite and
mirroredglass structure.The Memorialand the SPLCareperchedon the side of
a hill. Occupyingthe hilltopbehindthem is an imposing,palatialstructure-the
AlabamaCenterfor Commerce.It towersabove theLaw Centeranddwarfsit and
the muchsmallerMemorial.The relativesizes of the threestructuresareexaggeratedby theiroccupancyof differentelevationson the hillside (Figure 1).
TheMemorial,the smallestandmostproximateof thethree,as one ascendsthe
hill, is composedof two structures.The firstis a peculiarblack granitestructure,
an inverted,asymmetrical,conicalpedestal,31 inches in heightandtwelve feet in
diameter(Figure2). Froma distance,thispiece resemblesa teacupminusa handle,
but Lin and the SPLC referto it as a "table"(see Abramson689n; and Southern
PovertyLaw Center). While its structureis asymmetrical,its top surface is a
perfect circle (Figure 3). From an off-center well on the tabletop flows water
that spreadssmoothly and evenly over the full surface, falls over its edge and
36
RHETORIC
SOCIETYQUARTERLY
................
.......
................
S
_
..........S||_-__
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.
. ........m
.L.
||1
.
__ _ I
....................
,..rF ........_
_...................................................
-_
s_
-s
.'.'i
*.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~..
:
..:.
=...
.
;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~----.iu r
... ......
... . . .
. ...
...........
...
..
.....
. :f....
.
....
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~*-
..
..............~
....
...........
...>
_E........ . ........... __
, .e
....
,. .''.''.'.
::.."....
.....
,--
........
''''''''""............
....
-"'-
E
....
2:::- si.
:iu
S
S~>(-
Y ?.;
......>.
f>>.if
.A=
_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-l ,S
|_-
......
37
CIVILRIGHTS
TACTIcS
BLAm,MIcHEJREPRODUCING
j~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
..............
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.
_. _. ____..
....
Figure 3
disappearsdown a small drainat the bottom of the base. The water flows over
inscriptionsarrangedin a circle aroundthe circumferenceof the tabletop.
The 53 inscriptionsmarkevents of the 1950s and 1960s, forming an annular
timeline(see Figure3). The majority(32) of the inscriptionsnamefontyindividuals and the circumstancesof their deaths. Few of these individuals,with the
exceptions of MedgarEvers and MartinLuther King, Jr., were public figures;
most achievedpublic prominenceonly in death,if even then.'3Most were murderedin retaliationfortheirparticipationin nonviolentactivism,or in attemptsto
obstructadvancesof theCivilRightsMovement. Others'deathsenergizedfturther
activism(Zinsser28, 36). Forexample,includedamongtheinscriptionsarethese:
28 AUG 1955 * EMMETTLOUIS TILL e YOUTH MURDERED FOR
*~MONEY,MS.
SPEAKINGTO W IEWOMN
25 SEP 1961 e HERBERTLEE *VOTERREGISTRATIONWORKER
KILLEDBY W IELEGISLATOR e LIBERTY,MS
15 SEP 1963* ADDLE MAE COLLINS * DENISEMCNAIR* CAROLE
ROBERTSON
CYNTHIAWESLEY SCHOOLGIRLSKILLED IN
*
BOMBING OF 16TH ST. BAPTIST CHURCH* BIRMINGHAM,AL
38
RHETORIC
SOCIETY
QUARTERLY
The remaining 21 inscriptions-irregularly and infrequentlypunctuating the
murders-tell of various Civil Rights related events during the same period.
Seven of these chronicle organizingactivities of the Movement,for example:
5 DEC 1955 * MONTGOMERYBUS BOYCOTTBEGINS
1 FEB 1960 * BLACKSTUDENTSSTAGESIT-INAT"WHITESONLY"
LUNCH COUNTER* GREENSBORO,NC
Nine others reportlegal remedies or advances secured by the Movement, for
example:
24 SEP 1957 * PRESIDENT EISENHOWER ORDERS FEDERAL
TROOPS TO ENFORCE SCHOOL DESEGREGATION * LITTLE
ROCK,AR
9 JUL 1965 * CONGRESSPASSESVOTINGRIGHTSACT OF 1965
And the remainingfive tell of setbacksor obstructionistreactions,for instance:
14 MAY 1961 * FREEDOM RIDERS ATTACKEDIN ALABAMA
WHILE TESTING COMPLIANCEWITH BUS DESEGREGATION
LAWS
3 MAY 1963 * BIRMINGHAM POLICE ATTACK MARCHING
CHILDRENWITH DOGS AND FIREHOSES
The chronology begins with the 1954 Brown v. Board of Educationdecision
that mandatedschool desegregation. And it ends with Dr. MartinLutherKing,
Jr.'sassassination,in 1968. Between these first and last entries is a noticeable
blank space (see Figure 3), thatinstructsvisitors where to begin theirreading.
The second structure,but likely the first one that catches the view of the
visitor,is a convex curved,black granitewall, approximatelynine feet tall and
fortyfeet long, with waterrushingdown its face at waterfallspeed (Figure4). It
bears a single inscription: " . . . UNTIL JUSTICE ROLLS DOWN LIKE WA-
TERS AND RIGHTEOUSNESSLIKE A MIGHTY STREAM. -MARTIN
LUTHERKING,JR." This wall forms a lower level fagadefor the SPLC office
building,behind the table in the plaza area. To the side of the wall is an arced
stairwayup to the entranceof the SPLC. The stairwayis ropedoff; only Center
employees and others with business with the SPLC are allowed to ascend the
stairs. Those few who arepermittedup to the second level see a differentview
of the wall. Formingthe areaimmediatelyabove the wall is an absolutely still
pool of water standingon uninscribedblack granite(Figure5).
BLAIR,MicHL/EPRoDuaNG CwmIRIGHT TACrIcs
39
........ .....
......-
--,.
... .... ....
....~~~~~~~~~~.....
~~~~~~~~~~~~..
.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.
~
~~~~. .. ...~.......::3
_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.
L~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~..
g
.........
....~~~~~~~~x
_
_
..
....
...............
. .....
..
-. . . . . ......
. . . ..... .....
,<>-fi.
.. .. . -,..
.-......
. -.........
.
.._.__.
-...........o
.........-.;S
~~~~~~~~~~~~~..
__. _......._
. ......
- --: 5- R . .. . .. .
1~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.
,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~..,,,.
_
__
.....
_ _te
1
............
...
................................
;
~~~~~~~~~~~~...........................
'
MiB
11~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.
R_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.
_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.
..
_.
::S
_
.....-........... .::::......
. ..
... . .. ..
_..
;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.....
e.S
2e1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~..
.-.
..-.
.
. .. . .
_i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
....>e
...
'
_
E~~
i
;siT
;a~~~~~~~~~~~a_<___
~S~~~
,N,-~~~~~~~~~.-..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~....
'
...fl1^,
........ ,.........................................-
.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~...
eie.
... ..................
,>z;..y
~~~
~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
..
S
-.)
.;,,x~~~~~c.
_
_
.
.................................
.
_.........
.
.....
Figum
5~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.
..
..
.
.
. . . . .
......
40
RHETORICSOCIETYQUARTERLY
The Civil Rights Memorialis a remarkablycomplex commemorativerhetoric. Its design components,e.g., color, shape, size, and inscriptions,combine
and recombinewith its contextsto createa web of multipleperformances,spectacles thatbothreproduceandtransformhistoricallythetacticsof the Civil Rights
movement. We turnour attentionto those now.
A READING OF THE PERFORMATIVERHETORIC OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS
MEMORIAL
As with our discussion of the Civil Rights Movement, our focus on the
Memorial attendsless to issues of symbolism than to materialism. That is, we
concentratehere on the performativedimension of the site, attendingto what it
does (Pollock 21).14 We aremoreinterestedhere in its enactmentsthanits representations, for the Memorialseems a perfect exemplarof Della Pollock's suggestion that performance"discomposeshistory as myth, making of it a scene
awaiting interventionby the performingsubject"(27).
Like the Movement it commemorates,the Civil Rights Memorial disrupts
and infringes on public space. The Memorial itself now is the "black body"
positioned so as to createdislocation,tension, and (minor)inconvenience. The
Memorial's table structureinterruptsthe sidewalk and the vector of pedestrian
action along it (see Figure2). To walk in a straightline is to runheadlong into
the table, so the pedestrianis confrontedwith the choice of attendingto, even
engaging with, the Memorialor to go out of her/his way to avoid doing so. To
engage with it is to be drawninto its narrative,to touchits historicalre-creation,
and to be cooled by the feel of the water. It "troubles"thepedestrianjust enough
to commandher/his attentionandat least some degree of involvement.
The Memorial infringes in a less individuatedway as well. Its location in
downtown Montgomeryplaces it in a position of overt challengeto most of the
landmarksin the area.15Except for the King MemorialBaptistChurchon DexterAvenueand a few small signs, thereare few prominentmarkersin the areaof
anythingbut the glories of the Confederacyand the more contemporarywhite
establishment. Within easy walkingdistance are the beautifullypreserved and
lovingly tended first White House of the Confederacy,where Jefferson Davis
resided for the first couple of monthsafter secession; the ConfederateSoldiers
Monument,on the State Capitolgrounds;the star embeddedon the steps of the
Capitol where Davis stood to deliver the declarationof secession; a historical
markerat the end of DexterAvenuecommemoratingthefirstrenditionof "Dixie";
a statue of JeffersonDavis on the Capitolgrounds;the preservedinteriorareas
of the Capitol where the secession debateswere held; andthe state'sCenter for
Commerce, best characterized,we believe, as a monumentto the state's economic/political icons.
The Civil Rights Memorialdisruptsthis cityscape performatively,intruding
upon the otherwise ratherunitarycharacterof Montgomery'sother symbolic
spaces (Carr,et al. 187-191, 294). It does so serenely and with dignity, but
BLAIR, MICHEL/REPRODUCING CIVIL RIGHTSTACTICS
41
assertively;the Memorialcalls attentionto the cityscape it infringesby projecting images of the city in its refractivewall. This wall does not, like its famous
predecessor in Washington,simply reflect the images of those present in the
areathatconstitutesthe Memorial'sspace. Althoughone might catchimages of
oneself, those images arevague. Much clearerarescenes from outsidethe plaza
area. The convex curve of the wall bends light, poaching those scenes from
outside and incorporatingthem. And it appropriatesand involves those who
take no action to attendto it and even those who go out of their way to avoid it.
The Civil RightsMemorialalso reproducesthe mid-centuryCivil Rightsprotests' announcementof resolve. It is small and appearseven more diminutive
againstthe backdropof the giganticAlabamaCenterfor Commerce(see Figure
1). But it standssolidly,even determinedly,in the midstof whatcan be described
only as an inhospitablesymbolic context, "headlining"in its inscribedtext the
extraordinaryefforts of ordinarypeople in securing the most basic of human
rights. It displays their dedicated efforts as ongoing and resolute, even when
attendedby the risk of violent obstructionand murder. But the Memorialdoes
morethanrepresentthose past actions;it reproducesthem. The Memorialstands
in the entrance plaza of its patron, the SouthernPoverty Law Center, whose
office building was constructedon this site in the aftermathof a firebombingof
its previous office in 1983, by members of the Klan. The constructionof the
new SPLC office building itself served notice, but that announcementwas invigoratedby the appearanceof the Memorialas partof its frontfagade. For this
organizationnot only to recover,but to bringback with it a costly andprominent
piece of public art,andone designed by the nation'smost famous architect,was
to post a clear message thatit and the issues it raises are not going away.
The assertionof determinationis bolsteredby the overtandintrusivepresence
of uniformedsecuritypersonnelat the Memorialsite (Figure6). Theyarestationed
thereprincipallyto deterterroristactionagainstthe SPLC, which is underseemingly perpetualthreatfromhate groups.16 Althoughthe securitypersonnelmake
every effortto be "ambassadorsfor the Center"andto intrudeas little as possible
uponvisitors'experienceof the Memorial(Brinkman),theirpresenceandactivities
simply do (and must) disruptthe serenityof the site. But the "disruption"reinforces the message of resolve. It asserts a strong determinationto continue in
the Center's work on race-relatededucationaland legal programs. And the securitypresence remindsvisitorsby implicationthatthereremainsa forceful and
dangerousopposition,willing to engage in violence to halt moves towardracial
justice. The securityforce becomes a partof the Memorial'sperformativescene,
"arguing"for the necessity of ongoing vigilance and social action.
The Memorial's reproductionof the thirdtactical dimension of Civil Rights
protests-moralizing the individual as an agent of change-is also reproduced
here and is in no way compromisedby the prominence of the "institutional"
presence, such as the SPLC or its securityforce. The Memorial,like the Movement, situates the visitor as agent. When the visitor engages the narrativein-
42
Figure
6~
RHETORIC
SOCIETYQUARTERLY
~~~~~~~~~~~---------........................
scnbed in the tabletops/he literally towers over history the table 31~~~~~~~~~~..
is...only
.................
inches inheight, and so visitors gaze
down.to.read.the.mscnptions.(Figure.7).
.nomase.
hewol.f.h.nratv.l
Mor.over
a.gaze. acos th.tbe
lowingthe visitor~~~~~.......
a comadngviwoit.nth.as.1.ishe.ouh.itub
the wate
. over th.ncitinealngasmtc.iyblc
the....flow
....of
...
intervention
in history. Because it is the
ordinaryperson, the
visitor
to
this...
......
publicspace, who
is summonedas the audience, the issue posed is ethical
and~~~~~~~~~~~
..........
individual,
thn
rather~~~~~~
uidcl.rleilaie.Scha.adeneha.o.tndn
to cnstrct istittionl
eicts Andin ay cae, ad a we
ill.ddres.futhe
on,uch nsttutinal
ctin isrepesened, n
oher.hetoica.feau..
of.th
Memorial,
symas~~~~~~~..
haig.
rvde.nl.atilrmey.Rca.ise
remain..
bolically
unresolved.....
...... in.te.Mmoral'.rheorial.estres
Fialy jus as.......
th.Cvi.RghsMoemntwokd.tspoitc.trogha.i
sual/mteriarhetoric,..th.ivlRihs.eora'
vsalmteil
ienin
init cane
attiude
hifs.o bycomellng
pespetiv..Terearemulipl
examples of suchshifts. But perhapsthe most importantcase is the Memorial's~~~~~~~~~
trnmtainofatnto.ro.h.ps.o.h.reetan.uur.Athuhi
does.
the...work.
tht.n.mmrilmutdohnoig.h.poleo.eetsi
naesth CiilRiht.Mmoia.asopefomshitoy.n..cnsicoul
political.
faho..A.
... bamo.oit.ut.h.CvlRihsstuge.sdspae
in..arealist.....
moeasth."eura".isostonofa.imlie.ngavd.n.h
peiee ofte.
aleo.wihdae.orgoudd.n.it.o.euaritevl
amog.te.vens..owver.inths.tme..ewe.ee.n.nteestngandpol.i
43
BLAm,MICHEJREPRODUCING
CIVILRiGHTSTACTICs
s
~~~~~~~~~~~~...........;
A:
1- -.
E~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-i.
.7;
...
murders
:s}>e~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
. M r...e.o......
.a.-.l
th
i
I
a
t
ents
.:. . . ..
z:t
-.. . .---\
. . .- ....F
. .. .n"'
. .:'.. . . . . . . ':::_
A.
. .. . . ..
:......... ... . .. . . .. .. . . .. .. .. .. ..
.. . .-.
O.
. . .5. . .an.R.1?.. 2.. ... . ..
. i.-. m.
. . Y.
....
tion
t
....
o
fina
Lut.
.......
t
.
Browv.
.o
.M
.. .Jr-.
onemarks
.n
the
r ragedy
deisi
of
e
Mrin
s
fh
K
I
to be
sur, but alo one*ofsufferin cancou
, volnc,1ndfalue
. . . A_.
'.... . .
one mighepc.
Te engrave sucse:ra
eeri
ubrta
h
Figue 7_
atdqotto
from.Kin 1Pon
te wal lik th ufnsEd
thzeexpresedgals of
well as'
th
lissadbgnigo
_ieie
suget.ta
haenotbe
oe andrighteouedbysnesss
justic,
h
uoaino
h
achieved.hmIts
al
NI
seemsifaireto
cncludlethatnthe
representaiondothpasanrat-the
u teto
hf eventsgrofsthe
Teetoltegetrsothmeoilipatcular
botwe
totepeetadftre
ypsnusin
emgtepc
_n the
Ciilrights. Morovemeni
htmih 1950plshandt9s-leisunatisfyjuingiand
oenx
ntetmhe
ambivalment.,
jutcopeal
Butrcmeth
tmora dimegenstionlas,
ofdthe Meorihaledoeotendlewith isucwordsd
or
tevetitsi bo diinlmrders.TeMmra
ah disptila ofscthe
tranbsmruteonstattetionsfro
past tofathetBoricalconsrudctsion
"orthis
touthi
happmened,"
oftepresent, fromes
"hisnappoeng.mrsthetrearedaynuMbertoignaLste
the
tepr.salscontinuityion.
ofng
Memor
ial, incheludin
thencntirculaintyho
the tabecrthe cotiuoues. flowofbthevi
water,
mrostdinectly thespacelo thketalafe
the
fniiseinalinscripstion
tas
qoatind
theelpeaonclde beginin ofthe
wells fasr
quoesetation on the wall:th eventofUNtIL.
Bu"thes
giensturesof the Memorial onopaticula
twmoralate
sihifts
ourdatenton
the
futrbroigqetosaoutwhen
presentan
patto areoiaosrcino
expec
wapeedmighto
justier todpreail adiey
what spghtcomtenexteonte the
tieine.isrptoa
44
RHETORICSOCIETYQUARTERLY
The shift in time to the presentand its configurationof social justice is buttressedby another,physical featureof the Memorialas well, its refractivewall.
By refractingthe images of its surroundings,the Memorialimplicatesin its own
design the scene of contemporaryMontgomeryandthe city's residentsand visitors. That scene is composed not just of the city's surroundingConfederate
memory sites, but also of the profile of Montgomeryas a city and seat of government. It is a divisive, tensiveprofile. The city andits environsremainheavily
segregated,and the city "feels"as well as looks divided.19The wall, thus, references us to an imperfectand unresolvedpresent,offeringa visual image matching whatRichardGraydescribes:"[T]heold ways survivein however shadowy
a disguise; the old racialprejudicesare sustainedin indirect,coded form"(224).
The upper level of the Memorialand its still pool of water clearly seem to
representthe future. Ironically,access to the second level is foreclosed for security reasons.20However,the view from the "future"is an interestingone. Not
only is the water still, a standardculturalmarkerof contemplationand peace
(Moore 120-129), but the elevated area also offers a vantagepoint to view the
lower plaza level scene. The face of the wall is no longer visible; the representationof the present disappears,collapsedinto the representationof the past. As
one gazes down at "thepast"(the table), s/he is distancedfrom it, removed to a
space where racial strife clearly is a remnantof the past. This time shifting by
visual perspective seems to suggest above all thatracialjustice remainsa future
imaginary,that it was not realized in the Civil Rights Movement.
Another example of visual/materialperspective shifting that seems importanthere has to do with the Memorial'scolor. Not all blackgraniteis the same,
and the stone used for this memorialis not at all like the uniformlyblack granite
composing the VietnamVeteransMemorial. The materialof the Civil Rights
Memorial is highly variegatedin color, almost mosaic-like in its composition.
That color variationis not visible from even a shortdistanceor in most photographs,but the multiple colors are unmistakablein a close view of the Memorial. Thus, as a visitor approachesthe Memorial, the starkblack-white color
double recedes, as if as a reminderthatrace cannotbe renderedin binaryform
but must be recognized as diverse and multiple, but still suffused by common
interest. When we focus on color, the table, which performsthe Memorial's
representationof the past, appearsas a darkbody inscribedwith and indentured
to white words. The representationof the future,however,remainsuninscribed,
free of any verbal coding and unencumberedof the white, discursive containment thatcharacterizesthe symbolic past.
Whitenessis displacedandsubvertedtoo by the characterof manyof the table's
inscriptionsmarkingdeath. The mostly AfricanAmericanmurdervictims are
describedin the timelinenot only by name, but frequentlyin termsthatpoint to
theirinnocence and/ortheircivic status:"youth,""Rev."[Reverend],"students,"
"voterregistrationworker,""Cpl."[Corporal],"children,""CivilRights leader,"
"schoolgirls,""witness to murder,""Civil Rights workers,""marchvolunteer,"
TACrICS
RIGHTS
CIVIL
BLAIR,
MICHELIREPRODUCING
45
"seminarystudent,"and "black communityleader." Their murderers,by contrast,are describedas "Nightriders,""whitelegislator,""police,""Klan,""state
trooper,""deputy,"and "highway patrolmen."These nameless individuals are
representedas authorizedor at least protectedby institutionalauthorityor group
solidarity. When the perpetratorsare not identifiedexplicitly, the context of the
murderis: "killed for leading voter registrationdrive,""murderedfor organizing black voters,""murderedfor speakingto white woman" "killedprotesting
constructionof segregatedschool," and "killedafterpromotionto 'white' job."
Starkly representedhere are mindless and ruthless bids to maintainpower.
Although the murderersare rarely identifiedas white, the implicationis obvious. Read together,the identities named by the timeline point to a reversal of
identificationmuch like that advocatedby CornelWest:
To engage in a serious discussion of race in America, we must begin not
with the problemsof black people but with the flaws of American society-flaws rooted in historic inequalities and longstanding cultural
stereotypes. How we set up the termsfor discussing racialissues shapes
our perceptionand response to these issues. As long as black people are
viewed as "them,"the burden falls on blacks to do the "cultural"and
"moral"work necessary for healthyracerelations. (3)
Rhetorically,the timeline seeks alignmentof the visitor with those murdered
(majorityAfrican Americans) and solicits division between the visitor and the
murderers(presumablyall EuropeanAmericans).
But the timeline's representationof the murderersas so often those in positions of cultural authorityand its named "reasons"for the murderssignal an
even strongermove thanreassigning "us"and"them." Homi Bhabhacould be
describingthe Memorial'scritique of whitenesswhen he suggests that:
The subversivemove is to reveal withinthe very integumentsof "whiteness" the agonisticelements thatmakeit the unsettled, disturbedform of
authoritythatit is-the incommensurable"differences"thatit must surmount;the historiesof traumaandterrorthatit must perpetuateand from
which it mustprotectitself, the amnesiait imposes on itself; the violence
it inflicts in the process of becoming a transparentand transcendentform
of authority.(21)
The timeline performsthe dynamics of whiteness as a form of authoritythat
maintainsitself throughbrutalityand terrorandonly underthe sign of rationalized insanity. Who but a terroristor a lunatic,afterall, would murdera minister,
a schoolgirl, a militaryofficer,or a communityleader,or do so for the "reasons"'
namedin the timeline?Whitenessis indeeddisplayedhere as unsettled,disturbed,
and violent in its struggleto preserve its dominance.
46
RHETORICSOCIETY QUARTERLY
CONCLUSION: WHAT BRAND OF RACIAL POLITICS?
What might we learn from the juxtapositionof these two readings of the
Civil Rights Memorial-the one based on a critical posture that takes author,
genre, and symbolism as the significantconstellationof issues in its hermeneutic, and the otherpredicatedon readingsnot only of symbolic but materialconsiderations?We certainlyagree with Abramsonthatthe shape and substanceof
the Memorial'stimelineare importantcomponentsof its rhetoric. However,the
critical moves he makes are to identify the characteristics(and political shortcomings) of the timeline as a standardhistorical regimen and then to assign
those characteristicsto the Civil Rights Memorial.
We believe that is a mistaken approachfor two reasons. First, it overlooks
the specific substanceof the timeline's symbolic representationsin the case of
the Memorial. Even if we heeded only the symbolism of the timeline, in other
words, we would be inclinedto readthe Memorialas morecritical (in Mitchell's
sense) than does Abramson. Second and more important,his reading abjures
any attentionto the materialfeaturesof the Memorialor of its context. If we
understandthose materialconsiderationsas interactingwith the symbolism of
the Memorial, we read a much different message than Abramson does; the
Memorial, in our view, encourages its visitors to reject the very position that
Abramsonarguesthe Memorialpromulgates.Althoughwe believe thatstudying
symbolismalone andin the absenceof materialityis inadequateto an understanding or critiqueof any rhetoric,it certainlyis so in the case of public art. The
discrepanciesbetweenourreadingandAbramson'shighlightthe differentialpossibilities. So, as we pose this criticalreadingalongsideAbramson's,whatmight
we concludeaboutthe Civil Rights Memorial'spoliticalrhetoric?
Abramson'sreadingof the Memorialconfines its rhetoricto the inscriptions
in the timeline, the Memorial'ssymbolic representationof the past. Abramson
concludes thatthe Memorialapprovesa relianceon institutionalauthorityas the
appropriateagency of change, therebyreiteratingthe status quo and reducing
the difficultissues of race to a non-controversialandtoo easy formulation. His
critiqueapparentlypresumesthat the Memorialaffirmsfor the presentthe substantivepolitics of the past. Abramson'saccountof the Memorial's timeline is
descriptively accurate,if incomplete. The Memorial does represent governmental action as the principalform of interventionin andredress of racialinjustice. But the Memorial's timeline representsa past it makes every effort to
displace rhetorically.If thereis a politics thatit preservesfrom the past, it is not
the substantiveauthorityof the law, but the tacticalperformanceof resistance.
What the Memorialcan tell us is preciselythe messageAbramsonreads. But if
we read beyond the representationsof the timeline to the Memorial's material
performances,we see a more complex and more subversiverhetoric.
Weunderstand
theCivilRightsMemorial'srhetoricas assigningtheeventsin the
timelineto the past anddeclaringthe actionsof thatfinitepast worthyof memory
butinadequateto thegoals of "justice"and"righteousness"
articulatedby Kingand
BLAIR, MICHEL/REPRODUCING
Civw RIGHTSTAcTics
47
quotedon the Memorial'swall. Nothingin the Memorial'stimelineshouldlead to
the conclusionthatthe past it inscribesis a past that we should"emulate"in the
presentand future. If anything,the highly unsatisfyingand troublingend of the
timelineseems to us to imply preciselythe obverse,thatthis is a past we should
rememberbutnotrepeator continue.Theclearseparationof representations
of past
andpresentfromthatof the futureappears(literally)to reinforcethatreading.
Thatthe Memorialshifts attentionfrom the past and even seems to argue for
a breakwith the past is not to suggest that it dishonors the Civil Rights Movement or its participants.Instead,its message aboutthe past seems more akin to
Dyson's assessmentabout the impactof King and the Civil Rights Movement:
despite the significant basic changes that King helped bring about, the
present statusof poor blackAmericansin particularpresentslittle cause
for celebration. Their situationdoes not mean that King's achievements
were not substantial. Ratherit reflects the deep structuresof persistent
racism andclassism that have not yet yielded to sustainedlevels of protest and resistance.... In orderto judge King's career,we must imagine
whatAmericansociety would be for blacks withouthis historic achievements. Withoutbasic rights to vote, desegregatedpublic transportation
and accommodations,equal housing legislation, and the like, American
society would more radically reflect what GunnarMyrdal termed the
AmericanDilemma. King andotherparticipantsin the civil rightsmovement wroughthistoric change, but that change was a partialmovement
towardreal liberation. (235-236)
Indeed,whattheMemorialdoes preservefromthe pastis not the Movement'sreliance on institutions,but its tacticalperformancesof protestand resistance. It importsintothe present-the time of thevisitor-the tacticalrhetoricthatdrawsattention, announcesresolve,and enjoinsthe moralagency of the individual.It refuses
the damagethatarisesfrom the pretensethatracismended with the Civil Rights
Movement,by reenactingthe Movement'stacticalpoliticsin the present. In other
words,it createsa continuitywith the past by importinginto its own rhetoricthe
performancesof the Civil RightsMovement'sactivistdimension. Thatappropriation seemsto suggestthatthe continuitybetweenpastandpresentis racism. Butthe
Memorialcreatesa clear discontinuitybetween past and presentin terms of the
"solutions"it symbolizes.The timelinetells the visitorthat,despitetheinstitutional
changes,thegoal of racialjusticehasnotbeenachieved,thatthemethodsof thepast
have succeeded only in part. It does not prescribethe precise means of achieving racial concordin the present and future,but it clearly arguesthat change is
possible and desirablenow, in its refractedprojectionof the ever changing and
changeablescenes of Montgomeryand in its elevated view of the future.2
The Memorialdoes offer, however,at least some cues for currentresistance
and protest. If we notice the multicoloredgraniteof the Memorial,as we can at
RHETORIC
SOCIETYQUARTERLY
48
close range, it suggests an aesthetic of differenceand a politics of coalition, a
much differentposition than that representedin the timeline. Thatmessage is
buttressedin the fact thatthe designer of theMemorialis of Asian, notEuropean
orAfrican,descent. Moreover,if we attendto the representationsof the murderers in the Memorial'sinscriptions of the past,there is a devastatingmoral critique of whiteness to be read there. And by posing governmentinstitutionsas
the means of social change and as the legitimatingcover for a numberof the
representedperpetratorsof violence (e.g., legislator,police, state trooper),it reveals precisely the kinds of contradictionsupon which whiteness sustains its
control. The Memorial, in other words, harborsas part of its rhetoricmoves
toward a coalitional politics of diversity and what bell hooks has named a
"deconstructionof the category 'whiteness"' (150). That hardly constitutesa
continuitywith remediesof the past, at leastthoserepresentedby the Memorial.
In general,then, we would argue thatthe Civil Rights Memorial'srhetorical
stance is not the preservative,conciliatory one that Abramsonreads. Instead,
we believe it participatesin the kinds of memory and public art projects described at the beginning of our essay respectivelyby John Hope Franklinand
W.J.T.Mitchell. It faces us with our own historyfor the purposes of changeand
efforts to avoidrepeatingthe past. And it is a critical artproject in every sense
Mitchell describes, in its display of the violence from the Civil Rights era, its
reenactmentsof the tactical moves of the Movement,and in its willingness to
engage issues of the presentand future in frank,if controversial,ways.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authorswould like to express their gratitudeto the SouthernPoverty
Law Center,and particularlyto Penny Weaver,the SPLC CommunicationsDirector. They would also like to thank VictoriaGallagher,North CarolinaState
University,forfrequentandgenerous suggestionsaboutthe authors'largerproject
on the Civil Rights Memorial.
CaroleBlair,American Studies,Universityof California,Davis
Neil Michel, Axiom Photo and Design, Davis, California
NOTES
'The SPLCreportson its website:"Mostrecently,the Centerhasbecomeinternationally known for its success in developingnovel legalstrategiesto crippleextremistactivities
andto help victimsof hatecrimeswin monetarydamagesagainstgroupslike theKlan."See
SouthernPovertyLaw Center<http://www.splcenter.org>.
The SPLC gainedperhapsthe
most fame by virtuallybankruptingsome hategroupsby filing andwinningcivil claimson
behalf of families of murdervictims. But it has a strong educational, as well as legal,
mission. The Intelligence Project tracks and reportson hate group activities and hate
crimes acrossthe U.S. And TeachingToleranceoffersgrantsandcurriculafor innovative
projectson tolerancein schools. For fascinatingpersonalaccountsof some of the Center's
legal and watchdogwork, see; Dees, Season; Dees, Hate; and Dees, GatheringStonn.
BLAIR, MICHEL/REPRODUCING
CIVILRIGHTsTACTICS
2
49
The Civil Rights Memorial has received less attentionthanits famous forerunner in Washington,but it has received some critical commentary,e.g., in Abramson;
Blair; Senie 38-39; Symmes 132-133; and Zinsser. It is discussed also in the 1994
film, Maya Lin: A Strong Clear Vision,which won the 1995 Academy Awardfor best
feature documentary.
3We see the performativecharacterof the Civil Rights Memorialas a fundamental partof its rhetoric. Our position is reliant on and works from the following sources
that also treatpublic sites or public artas instances of (or somehowimplicating)communication,rhetoricand/orperformance:Armada;Blair;Blair, Jeppeson,and Pucci; Blair
andMichel;Bowman;CarlsonandHocking;Dickinson;Ehrenhaus,"Silence";Ehrenhaus,
"Vietnam";Foss; Gallagher,"Memory";Gallagher,"Remembering";Griswold;Haines;
Hattenhauer;Jackson;Jorgensen-Earpand Lanzilotti;Katriel;Marback;Mechling and
Mechling;Rosenfield; Stuart;Sturken;and Trujillo.
4 Ourreading,like Abramson's,will be partial.Thatis the case not only because of
the truismthat all readings are partial,but also because we are focusing on some of the
featuresAbramsondid not. Even then, there are many other rhetoricalfeatures of the
Memorialthatwill receive farless attentionhere thanthey merit,e.g., the waterimageryin
the Memorial,its religious overtones,the Memorial'splace in the contextof a late twentieth-centurycommemorative"boom,"theMemorialin relationto otherCivil Rights-related
memorysites, its developmentandconstructionin aneraof race-relatedsetbacksandbacklashes, and so forth. This essay representsonly a smallportionof our criticalreading;we
are workingon a largerprojecton the Civil Rights Memorialas this essay goes to press.
For excellent treatmentsof other Civil Rights memory sites, see Armada (Civil
Rights Museum, Memphis); Gallagher,"Remembering"(King Memorial,Atlanta);and
Gallagher,"Memory"(Civil Rights Institute,Birmingham).
'Abramson also complains that the Memorial makes "no reference to other aspects of the 1960s civil rights struggle, such as the separatistagenda of radical black
nationalismpropoundedby the early Malcolm X, among others"(701). It should be
noted thatthe Civil Rights Movementtypically is not regardedas containingseparatism
or black nationalism as among its "aspects." If one honors the achievements of Civil
Rights groups, separatistand radicalgroups of the mid-centurywould be definitionally
excluded on almost any grounds. Nationalists and separatistsdid not seek equality of
rightsunderthe civil law of the United States;they sought,explicitly,a separatecommunity affiliation. There certainly is every reason to honorthose who have defended such
separation,but to demandthat a memorialto Civil Rights honorthem is to make something of a categoryerror.And it also treats separatismratherdismissively,reducingit to
an "aspect"of anothermovement with which it was not typically even aligned.
6 The following collections directlyaddressthe questionof a materialrhetoricor
have clearimplicationsfor it: the two-volume special issue of ArgumentationandAdvocacy, on "Body Argument,"edited by GerardA. Hauser;and Selzer and Crowley, eds.
Also see: Charland;Cloud, "Materiality";
Cloud, "NullPersona";Condit;Cox; Crowley;
McGee, "Materialist'sConception";McGee,
Greene;Krippendorff;McGee, "Ideograph";
"Text";McGuire;McKerrow,"Corporeality";McKerrow,"CriticalRhetoric";Railsback;
Scholle; Stewart;Thomas; and Wood and Cox.
7'What we find most peculiaraboutAbramson'sconclusion is thathe does attend
to some otherfeaturesof the Civil RightsMemorialandthe othermemorials,but that he
ultimatelydismisses the other featuresin favor of focusing on the timeline.
50
RHETORICSOCIETYQUARTERLY
8See also, for example, Miles. He suggeststhatmonumentsandmemorialsstand
"for a stabilitywhich conceals the internalcontradictionsof society . . . "(58).
9 Chongdoes a masterfuljob of describingthe tactics of the Civil Rights Movement and in a far more thorough way thanwe will attempthere. Althoughhis account
suffers to some degree from the turgidityof game theory, and althoughChong would
certainlynot describehis work this way, his book representsan admirableaccountof the
materialdimensionof the protest activity.
0Also see Haiman;and Rustin 337.
"
Also see CORE241. The point, as Hausersuggests, is to demonstratethe irrefutability of a movement's position: "Removaland control of the dissident's physical
body ... underscoresthe body's argumentativepotency. Rebukingthe dissident's selfsufficiency in this extra-symbolicfashion creates tension for the state's own self-sufficiency. Removingthe opposition by forciblycontrollingits body serves as an admission
that dissidentideas cannotbe refuted, therebybestowing a hyper-rhetoricalpresence on
the political prisoner'sbody" (6).
12 There are any number of genuinely fine accounts of the Civil Rights Movement. Certainlythe most complete in detailingthe activitiesof the Movementleadership
is Taylor Branch'stwo-volume work: Partingthe Waters;and Pillar of Fire. Weisbrot
offers a muchmorecondensedbut still very useful history,andJohnLewis's book, Walking Withthe Wind,is one of a numberof excellent autobiographicalchronicles.
13 SaraBullard,the SPLC directorof research,suggests that, "A big problem [in
doing the researchfor the Memorial] was thatnewspapersin the South didn'tcover these
deaths"(quotedby Zinsser36).
14 There is at least some precedentfor understanding
artworksas performative,
given particularconditions. Discussing Henry Sayre's work, for example, Pollock argues that:"ForSayre,Fischl's paintingsare performative.They require'our collaboration, amplification,[and]embellishment.' By positioning audience membersas agents
in the productionof cultural meanings, they also thus position audience members as
social agents,who workout their relationswith each otherin and throughthe process of
meaning making engenderedby the artwork/event. The performativework thus fans
outward. It makes of its own capacity for historicityan occasion for the articulationof
difference andre-productionof culturalauthority,and so for contests over value, meaning, and power"(27).
15There certainlyare sites of interestto those more inclined to value the Civil
Rights historyof the city, but to suggest thatthey are prominentor easily accessible to a
first-time visitorwould be a gross overstatement.It took us two ten-dayvisits to Montgomery and repetitive, stubborninquiries to learn that there was even a driving tour
brochureof Civil Rights-relatedsites in Montgomery. It was unavailableat the city's
visitor center as well as at the state's Chamberof Commerce offices in the Center for
Commercebuilding. Wefinally located one at anothertouristsite. And it is worthnoting
that, while most brochuresfor historicalandtour sites in the city are free, this one is not.
For anotherdescriptionof the tourist context, see Blair 42-44.
16 Accordingto Tom Brinkman,the Chief of Security for the SouthernPoverty
Law Center,the Centerreceives an averageof two-threethreatsper day, eitherby phone
or by the appearanceof known hate groupmembersat the site.
17 Barthesdiscusses this kind of empoweringview in his classic reading of the
Eiffel Tower.
CIVILRIGHTSTACTICS
BLAIR, MICHEIJREPRODUCING
51
18
Whether Brown v. Board was a real success, of course, has been called into
question,particularlyby criticalracetheorists. For a discussionof the issues, see Hasian
and Delgado 251ff.
19Our own experiences have been of a divided, racially tense city. But we are
"outsiders"and not as well situatedto get or give a sense of the city as are its residents.
However,some of them would agreewith us. Joe Levin, co-founderwith MorrisDees of
the SPLC, asserted in an interview with us that he believed Montgomeryis extremely
racist. And an editorial in the local newspaperhints of a similar admission about the
state:"Likeit or not, fair or not, accurateor not, the simple fact is thatmany people who
have never been to Alabama still look on it as a haven for redneckism. There's enough
kernel of truthin that image to makeit hurt"("Pride." Emphasisadded).
20 Althoughvisitors are not allowedto climb the stairs,the second level is andwas
intendedto be part of the Memorial. Accordingto Morris Dees, Personalinterview,the
SPLC plans call for a new office space in the next few years and the conversion of the
currentoffice building to a visitor center. At that point, we presume,access to the upper
level will be open.
21 As bell hooks argues so forcefully, "No responsibilityneed be taken for not
changing something if it is perceivedas immutable. To accept racism as a system of
dominationthatcan be changedwoulddemandthat everyone who sees him- or herself as
embracinga vision of racial social equalitywould be requiredto assertanti-racisthabits
of being" (271).
WoRKsCITED
Abramson,Daniel. "MayaLin andthe 1960s:Monuments,TimeLines, andMinimalism."
Critical Inquiry22 (1996): 679-709.
Armada,BernardJ. "MemorialAgon:An InterpretiveTourof the National Civil Rights
Museum." SouthernCommunicationJournal 63 (1998): 235-243.
Barthes,Roland. "The Eiffel Tower."A Barthes Reader. Ed. Susan Sontag. New York:
Hill and Wang, 1982. 236-50.
Bhabha,Homi K. 'The White Stuff." ArtforumInternational,May 1998. 21-24.
Blair,Carole. "ContemporaryU.S. MemorialSites as Exemplarsof Rhetoric'sMateriality." In Selzer and Crowley,eds. 16-57.
, MarshaS. Jeppeson, andEnricoPucci,Jr.. "PublicMemorializingin Postmodernity:
The VietnamVeteransMemorialas Prototype." QuarterlyJournal of Speech
77 (1991): 263-88.
in the Theme ParkZone:Readingthe Astronauts
, andNeil Michel. "Commemorating
Memorial." At the Intersection:CulturalStudiesand Rhetorical Studies. Ed.
Thomas Rosteck. New York:Guilford, 1999. 29-83.
"Body Argument." Special Issue-PartsI and II. Ed. GerardA. Hauser. Argumentation
and Advocacy 36:1 and 2 (1999): 1-49; 51-100.
Bowman, Michael S. "PerformingSouthernHistory for the TouristGaze: Antebellum
Home TourPerformances."Pollock, ed. 142-158.
Branch, Taylor. Parting the Waters:America in the King Years,1954-63. New York:
Simon and Schuster,1989.
Pillar of Fire: America in the KingYears,1963-65. New York:Simon and Schuster,
1998.
Brinkman,Tom. Personal interview. Montgomery,AL. 30 March 1998.
52
RHETORICSOCIETYQUARTERLY
Carlson,A. Cheree,andJohnE. Hocking. "Strategiesof Redemptionat theVietnamVeterans' Memorial." WesternJournal of Speech Communication52 (1988): 203215.
Carr,Stephen,Mark Francis,Leanne G. Rivlin, and Andrew M. Stone. Public Space.
New York:CambridgeUniversityPress, 1992.
Chalmers,David. And the CrookedPlaces MadeStraight:TheStruggleforSocial Change
in the 1960s. 2d ed. Baltimore:JohnsHopkins UniversityPress, 1996.
Charland,Maurice. "ConstitutiveRhetoric:The Case of the Peuple Quebecois." QuarterlyJournal of Speech 73 (1987): 133-150.
Chong, Dennis. CollectiveAction and the CivilRights Movement. Chicago:University
of Chicago Press, 1991.
Cloud,DanaL. 'The Materialityof Discourseas Oxymoron:A Challengeto CriticalRhetoric." WesternJournalof Communication58 (1994): 141-163.
. "TheNull Persona:Race andthe Rhetoricof Silence in the Uprisingof '34." Rhetoric and Public Affairs2 (1999): 177-209.
Cmiel, Kenneth. "The Politics of Civility." The Sixties: FromMemoryto History. Ed.
David Farber. Chapel Hill: Universityof North CarolinaPress, 1994. 263290.
Condit, Celeste. "Cloudingthe Issues: The Ideal and the Materialin HumanCommunication." CriticalStudies in Mass Communication14 (1997): 197-200.
COREAction Discipline. VersionAdoptedby the National Conventionof the Congress
of RacialEquality,June 1945. Leaflet, 1945, COREArchives,StateHistorical
Society of Wisconsin. Rpt. in Meier,et al., eds. 240-243.
Cox, J. Robert. "On 'Interpreting'Public Discoursein Post-Modernity."WesternJournal of Speech Communication54 (1990): 317-329.
Crowley,Sharon. "Reflectionson an Argumentthat Won't Go Away:Or, a Turnof the
Ideological Screw." QuarterlyJournalof Speech 78 (1992): 450-465.
Dees, Morris. Telephoneinterview. 27 March1998.
, with James Corcoran. Gathering Storm: America's Militia Threat. New York:
HarperCollins,1996.
, with Steve Fiffer. Hate on Trial:The CaseAgainstAmerica'sMost DangerousNeoNazi. New York:Villard, 1993.
, with Steve Fiffer. A Seasonfor Justice: TheLife and Timesof Civil Rights Lawyer
MorrisDees. New York:CharlesScribner'sSons, 1991.
Dickinson, Greg. "Memoriesfor Sale: Nostalgiaandthe Constructionof Identityin Old
Pasadena." QuarterlyJournal of Speech 83 (1997): 1-27.
Dyson, Michael Eric. ReflectingBlack: African-AmericanCulturalCriticism. Minneapolis:University of MinnesotaPress, 1993.
Ehrenhaus,Peter. "Silence and Symbolic Expression."CommunicationMonographs55
(1988): 41-57.
. 'The VietnamVeteransMemorial:An Invitationto Argument."Journalof the American ForensicAssociation 25 (1988): 54-64.
Foss, Sonja K. "Ambiguityas Persuasion:The VietnamVeteransMemorial."Communication Quarterly34 (1986): 326-40.
Foucault,Michel. 'The Discourse on Language." Trans. RupertSwyer. Appendix to
The Archaeology of Knowledge. Trans.A.M. SheridanSmith. New York:
Pantheon,1972. 215-237.
CIVILRIGHTSTAcTICS
BLAIR, MICHEL/REPRODUCING
53
Franklin,John Hope. The ColorLine: Legacyfor the Twenty-FirstCentury. Columbia:
University of MissouriPress, 1993.
Gallagher,Victoria J. "Memoryand Reconciliationin the BirminghamCivil Rights Institute." Rhetoricand Public Affairs2 (1999): 303-320.
. "RememberingTogether:RhetoricalIntegrationand the Case of the MartinLuther
King, Jr.Memorial." SouthernCommunicationJournal 60 (1995): 109-119.
Gray, Richard. "NegotiatingDifferences: SouthernCulture(s) Now." Dixie Debates:
Perspectives on SouthernCultures. Ed. Richard H. King and Helen Taylor.
New York:New YorkUniversityPress, 1996. 218-227.
Greene,RonaldWalter. "AnotherMaterialistRhetoric." Critical Studies in Mass Communication 15 (1998): 21-41.
Griswold,CharlesL. "TheVietnamVeteransMemorialand the WashingtonMall: Philosophical Thoughtson PoliticalIconography."CriticalInquiry12 (1986): 688719.
Haiman,FranklynS. "TheRhetoricof the Streets: Some Legal and Ethical Considerations." QuarterlyJournalof Speech 57 (1967): 99-114. Rpt. in TheRhetoric
of Our Times. Ed. J. JefferyAuer. New York:Appleton-Century-Crofts,1969.
101-119.
Haines, HarryW. "'WhatKind of War?':An Analysis of the VietnamVeteransMemorial." Critical Studiesin Mass Communication3 (1986): 1-20.
Hasian,Marouf,Jr., and FernandoDelgado. "TheTrials and Tribulationsof Racialized
CriticalRhetoricalTheory:Understandingthe RhetoricalAmbiguitiesof Proposition 187." CommunicationTheory8 (1998): 245-270.
Hattenhauer,Darryl. "TheRhetoricof Architecture:A Semiotic Approach." Communication Quarterly32 (1984): 71-7.
Hauser,GerardA. "IncongruousBodies: Argumentsfor PersonalSufficiency andPublic
Insufficiency."Argumentationand Advocacy 36 (1999): 1-8.
hooks, bell. Killing Rage: EndingRacism. New York:Henry Holt, 1995.
Jackson,Shannon. "Performanceat Hull House: Museum, Microfiche,and Historiography." Pollock, ed. 261-293.
Jorgensen-Earp,Cheryl R., and Lori A. Lanzilotti. "PublicMemory and PrivateGrief:
The Constructionof Shrines at the Sites of Public Tragedy." QuarterlyJournal of Speech 84 (1998): 150-170.
Katriel,Tamar. "Sites of Memory:Discourses of the Past in Israeli Pioneering Settlement Museums." QuarterlyJournal of Speech 80 (1994): 1-20.
King, MartinLuther,Jr. "Letterfrom BirminghamCity Jail,April 16, 1963." TheRhetoric of the Civil-Rights Movement. Ed. Haig A. Bosmajian and Hamida
Bosmajian. New York:RandomHouse, 1969. 37-57.
-.
"Pilgrimageto Nonviolence."StrideTowardFreedom:TheMontgomeryStory. New
York: Harper and Row, 1958. 101-107. Rpt. in The Sixties Papers: Documents of a RebelliousDecade. Ed. JudithClavir Albert and StewartEdward
Albert. New York:Praeger,1984. 108-112.
Krippendorff,Klaus. "UndoingPower." Critical Studies in Mass Communication12
(1995): 101-132.
Lawson, James W., Jr. "Froma Lunch-CounterTool." Address at SNCC conference,
Raleigh, NC, April 1960. Rpt. as "WeAre TryingTo Raise the 'MoralIssue'."
Meier, et al., eds. 308-315.
54
RHETORICSOCIETYQUARTERLY
Levin, Joe. Personalinterview. Montgomery,AL. 2 April 1998.
Lewis, John, with Michael D'Orso. WalkingWiththe Wind:A Memoirof the Movement.
New York:Simon and Schuster, 1998.
Marback,Richard. "Detroitandthe Closed Fist:Towarda Theoryof MaterialRhetoric."
RhetoricReview 17 (1998): 74-92.
Maya Lin:A StrongClear Vision. Dir. FreidaLee Mock. Sanders& Mock Productions/
AmericanFilm Institute. 1994.
McGee, Michael Calvin. 'The 'Ideograph':A Link Between Rhetoricand Ideology."
QuarterlyJournal of Speech 66 (1980): 1-16.
. "AMaterialist'sConceptionof Rhetoric."Explorationsin Rhetoric:Studiesin Honor
of Douglas Ehninger.Ed. Ray E. McKerrow. Glenview,IL: Scott, Foresman,
1982. 23-48.
. "Text,Context,and the Fragmentationof ContemporaryCulture."WesternJournal
of Speech Communication54 (1990): 274-89.
McGuire,Michael. "Materialism:ReductionistDogma or CriticalRhetoric?" Rhetoric
and Philosophy. Ed. RichardA. Cherwitz. Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum
Associates, 1990. 187-212.
McKerrow,RaymieE. "CorporealityandRhetoric:A Site for Rhetoric'sFuture."Southem CommunicationJournal 63 (1998): 315-328.
"CriticalRhetoric:Theory and Praxis." CommunicationMonographs56(1989): 91111.
Mechling, ElizabethWalker,and Jay Mechling. 'The Sale of Two Cities: A Semiotic
Comparisonof Disneylandwith Marriott'sGreatAmerica."Journal of Popular Culture37 (1973): 253- 63. Rpt. in Rhetorical Dimensions in Media: A
CriticalCasebook. Ed. MartinJ. Medhurstand ThomasW.Benson. Dubuque,
IA: Kendall/Hunt,1984. 400-413.
Meier,August,Elliott Rudwick,andFrancisL. Broderick, eds. BlackProtest Thoughtin
the TwentiethCentury. 2d ed. New York:Macmillan, 1971.
Miles, Malcolm. Space and the City:PublicArtand Urban Futures.London:Routledge,
1997.
Mitchell, W.J.T. 'The Violence of Public Art: Do The Right Thing." Picture Theory:
Essays on Verbaland VisualRepresentation. Chicago:Universityof Chicago
Press, 1994. 371-396.
Moore, CharlesW. Waterand Architecture.New York: HarryN. Abrams, 1994.
Pollock, Della. "MakingHistory Go." Pollock, ed. 1-45.
, ed. ExceptionalSpaces: Essays in Performanceand History. Chapel Hill: University of North CarolinaPress, 1998.
"Pridein the Past." Editorial. TheMontgomeryAdvertiser 21 June 1989. 8A.
Railsback,Celeste Condit. "BeyondRhetoricalRelativism:A Structural-Material
Model
of Truthand ObjectiveReality." QuarterlyJournal of Speech69 (1983): 351363.
Rosenfield, LawrenceW. "CentralParkandthe Celebrationof CivicVirtue."American
Rhetoric:Contextand Criticism. Ed. Thomas W. Benson. Carbondale:Southern Illinois University Press, 1989. 221-265.
Rustin, Bayard. 'The Meaning of Birmingham."Meier, et al. eds. 332-340.
Sayre, Henry M. The Object of Performance:TheAmerican Avant-GardeSince 1970.
Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1989.
BLAIR, MICHELIREPRODUCING
CIVIL RIGHTSTACTICS
55
Scholle, David J. "Fromthe Theory of Ideology to Power/Knowledge."CriticalStudies
in Mass Communication5 (1988): 16-41.
Senie, HarrietF. ContemporaryPublic Sculpture:Tradition,Transformation,and Controversy. New York:Oxford UniversityPress, 1992.
Seizer, Jack, and SharonCrowley,eds. RhetoricalBodies. Madison:University of Wisconsin Press, 1999.
SouthernPovertyLaw Center. <http.//www.splcenter.org>.
Accessed 26 September1997.
Stuart,CharlotteL. "Architecturein Nazi Germany:A RhetoricalPerspective." Western
Speech 37 (1973): 253-63.
Stewart,John R. Languageas ArticulateContact:Towarda Post-SemioticPhilosophyof
Communication.Albany:StateUniversityof New YorkPress, 1995.
Sturken,Marita. TangledMemories:TheVietnamWar,TheAIDSEpidemic,and thePolitics
of Remembering.Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress, 1997.
Symmes, Marilyn. "Fountainsas Commemoration."Fountains:Splash and Spectacle:
Waterand Design Fromthe Renaissanceto the Present. Ed. Marilyn Symmes.
New York:Rizzoli, 1998. 123-135.
Thomas, Douglas. "It's Not WhatYou Say, It's ThatYou Say It: Speech, Performance,
and Sense in Austin and Deleuze." Philosophy and Rhetoric 29 (1996): 359368.
Trujillo,Nick. "InterpretingNovember 22: A CriticalEthnographyof an Assassination
Site." QuarterlyJournal of Speech 79 (1993): 447-466.
Weisbrot,Robert. FreedomBound:A Historyof America'sCivilRightsMovement. New
York:Penguin, 1991.
West, Cornel. Race Matters. Boston: Beacon Press, 1993.
Wood, Julia, and J. Robert Cox. "RethinkingCriticalVoice: Materiality and Situated
Knowledges." WesternJournal of Communication57 (1993): 278-287.
Zinsser, William. "I Realized Her Tears Were Becoming Part of the Memorial."
Smithsonian,September1991. 32-43.