Roundtable Discussion: Contested Pasts, Public Futures: Who Governs Historical Memory?
In an era of intense debate over historical monuments, national narratives, and contested histories, a critical question emerges: Who has the authority to shape public memory?
As part of the conference “The Past and Future of Public History”, organized by the Vilnius University team of the international project “EUROPAST”, this roundtable discussion featured visual artist and scholar Dr. Eglė Grėbliauskaitė, Director General of the Lithuanian National Museum of Art Dr. Arūnas Gelūnas, Professor Barbara Törnquist-Plewa from Lund University, and Professor Marko Demantowsky from the University of Vienna. Moderated by EUROPAST leader Professor Violeta Davoliūtė, the conversation delved into the complex dynamics of public history, the role of monuments, and the principles of a resilient memory culture in 21st-century democracies.
Who Shapes Public Memory?
The discussion opened with the fundamental question of who is, and who should be, the primary agent in shaping public memory.
Prof. Törnquist-Plewa argued that, for better or worse, the state is currently the primary actor due to its financial and administrative resources. However, she advocated for a multi-level process involving local authorities, civil society, artists, and scholars to ensure diverse representation. Dr. Gelūnas added that political constellations and ruling ideologies heavily influence what history is created and remembered, citing how topics once considered taboo in Lithuania are now openly discussed. Dr. Grėbliauskaitė emphasized the power of prevailing narratives, stating that those with the power and interest to frame stories are the ones who shape public memory. Prof. Demantowsky offered a more provocative view, suggesting that every actor in the public history sphere inherently believes they hold the truth. Still, he concluded that the answer depends on the historical and societal context.
Iconoclasm and the Geopolitical Context
The conversation then shifted to the recent wave of anti-Soviet and anti-Russian iconoclasm that swept through Eastern Europe following the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Dr. Gelūnas recounted the debate over the Stalinist-era statues on Vilnius's Green Bridge, which were eventually removed after the occupation of Crimea radicalized public opinion. Dr. Grėbliauskaitė discussed her artistic intervention, where she covered a monument of Soviet writer Petras Cvirka in moss before its removal. She clarified her action was not one of activism, which seeks immediate change, but of art, which "lingers and places open questions." She aimed to create a space for reflection on how societies deal with uncomfortable remains and the desire to "cleanse" history rather than confront it. Prof. Demantowsky noted that iconoclasm can be seen as part of monument culture itself, sometimes achieving the opposite of its intent by creating a more powerful memory through absence.
Principles of a Healthy Memory Culture
When asked to define a healthy and resilient memory culture, the panelists offered several principles. Prof. Demantowsky stressed the importance of listening, of reconstructing different perspectives, and of avoiding the neoliberal pressure to prioritize "ticket sales and outreach" in cultural institutions. Dr. Grėbliauskaitė argued for keeping the "field of understanding open" and for scholars and artists to maintain their integrity while engaging with the public.
Dr. Gelūnas humorously noted that while he is concerned with ticket sales, he believes in a balance between scholarly discussion and the "barricades" of public activism. The consensus leaned towards a "noisy public square full of debate and disruption" over a carefully curated consensus managed solely by experts.
The panelists agreed that while the rise of new technologies and social media presents challenges for manipulation, it also offers powerful tools for civic engagement and mobilization, making the governance of historical memory a continuous and vital democratic process.
