Mesta Buđenja Savesti Kao Čuvari Kolektivnog Pamćenja

Abstract

Kada je kraj XX veka doneo etniĉki motivisane sukobe u Evropi, ali i neprijateljstva unutar granica represivnih reţima u drugim delovima sveta, bilo je jasno da nijedan postojeći naĉin pamćenja i didaktiĉkog delovanja u pravcu neponavljanja zloĉina nije ostvario rezultat. Na krilaticu never again senku je bacilo novo, neţeljeno nasleĎete se opravdano postavilo pitanje - ako to nasleĊe treba ĉuvati, koji bi bio najzahvalniji model za to?

Kroz promišljanja o povezivanju sećanja, inaĉe elementa neopipljive baštine, sa fiziĉkim prostorom, te istraţivanja kako taj odnos interpretirati kao muzeološku / heritološku temu iskristalisao se i odgovor na gore postavljenu nedoumicu. Rešenje se pronašlo u mestima buĎenja savesti, jedinstvenim modelima oĉuvanja kolektivne memorije i disonantnog nasleĊa u tranzicionim društvima koja su u bliskoj prošlosti pretrpela masovne zloĉine.

Reĉ je o fenomenima koji obuhvataju elemente mnogih ranijih vidova memorijalizacije, a svoju misiju postiţu ispitivanjem odnosa izmeĊu kulturnog identiteta, svakodnevnog ţivota, politike, pamćenja i prostora. Uz nezaobilaznu emotivnu i pedagošku funkciju, mesta buĎenja savestitreba da budu svedoci kako su se pojedinci odnosili prema sukobima u prošlosti, meĊusobna veza sa ljudima u nekim drugaĉijim okolnostima, ali i prostor od poverenja za savladavanje novih stanovišta. Najveći izazov u postizanju tih ciljeva svakako je prilagoĊavanje komemorativne umetnosti potrebama lokalnog stanovništva, specifiĉnom kontekstu i kulturi.

Iz perspektive tranzicione pravde, gde se ovaj termin prvi put pominje,mesta buĎenja savestisu deo procesa memorijalizacije u domenu simboliĉkih reparacija. Memorijalizacija je proces kreiranja javnih memorijala, a javni memorijali obuhvataju razliĉite projekte i aktivnosti koji se dešavaju u javnoj sferi, u ţelji da zaštite sećanje na dogaĊaje, periode i liĉnosti od znaĉaja za ţivot odreĊene individue, porodice, društvene grupe ili zajednicu u celini.

Kako mesta buĎenja savestimogu i treba da izgledaju u praksi proverili smokroz realno projektovan nauĉno-istraţivaĉki angaţmana na terenu, primenjujućiiskustva najnovije multidisciplinarne teorije. Pomenuta ispitivanja sproveli smo tokom2012. i u prvom kvartalu 2013. godine u Brĉko Distriktu Bosne i Hercegovine. Ona su,pored uvida u stanje spomeniĉke baštine i memorijalizacijskih procesa u regionu,obuhvatila serije individualnih intervjua i konsultacija sa fokus grupama. Akcenat je biona sledećim pitanjima - šta pamtimo, a šta zaboravljamo? Kako prošlost odreĊujesadašnjost i oblikuje budućnost? Kakvi su odnosi izmeĊu pamćenja i spomenika, arhivai muzeja? Kako da razumemo dvostruku prirodu spomenika: kao sredstvo ideološkivezane memorije i / ili kao stalni izvor kreativne nadogradnje i stvaranja novih sećanja?Na koji naĉin je kulturni turizam povezan sa memorijom? Kako memorijal kojim seobeleţava traumatiĉni dogaĊaj iz prošlosti moţe da izazove interesovanje novih, mladihgeneracija, ĉiji su preci uĉestvovali u tim dogaĊajima kojih se oni praktiĉno i ne sećaju?Da li memorijali imaju ograniĉen rok trajanja? Šta im moţe produţiti ţivot? Da li moţetome da doprinese univerzalnost teme ili dizajna?

Ne postoji priruĉnik niti pravilo niti recept kako memorijali treba da izgledaju,niti ima garancija da će obavljati svoju funkciju. Šta je cilj pravljenja mesta buĎenjasavesti?Ţaljenje? Uĉenje? Pamćenje prošlosti i suprotstavljanje njenom savremenomnasleĊu? Nema jednog taĉnog odgovora, kao što nema ni samo jedne prepreke.Potrebno je mnogo volje i hrabrosti da se latimo teških istorija u osetljivim politiĉkimokolnostima. Još ako nedostaje podrška drţave, deluje uzaludno, premda se te stvarisistemski mogu promeniti. MeĊutim, ako meĊu samim akterima i ţrtvama ne postojisnaga da se pomire meĊusobno, posao postaje Sizifov.

Pa ipak, kao ĉuvari/ke baštine i muzejski profesionalci/ke, svi mi imamoobavezu da odluĉimo koja će biti naša uloga u tome.

Alternate abstract:

When the end of the 20th century brought ethnically motivated conflicts in Europe, as well as hostilities within the borders of repressive regimes in other parts of the world, it was clear that no existing form of remembrance and didactics aimed at preventing the recurrence of crimes had succeeded. A new, dissonant heritage cast a shadow over the slogan never again, and thus a valid question has been raised - if this legacy is to be protected, what would be the most appropriate model for that?

The answer to the aforementioned dilemma has taken shape through reflection on ways to connect memory, as an element of intangible heritage, to physical space, and through research on ways to interpret this relationship as a subject of museology/ heritology. The solution has been found in sites of conscience, a unique model of preserving the collective memory and dissonant heritagein the societies in transition that have suffered mass atrocities in the recent past.

We refer to the phenomena that include elements of many earlier forms of memorialization, fulfilling their mission by examining the links between cultural identity, daily life, politics, memory and space. With the inevitable emotional and pedagogical functions, sites of conscienceshould present how individuals related to the past conflicts, they should connect people who now find themselves in different circumstances, but also be areas of confidence building to gain new perspectives. The biggest challenge in achieving these goals is certainly the adjustment of commemorative art to the needs of the local population, the specific context and culture.

From the perspective of transitional justice, where the term is mentioned for the first time, sites of conscienceare part of the process of memorialization in the domain of symbolic reparations. Memorialisation is the process of creating public memorials containing a variety of projects and activities that occur in the public sphere, in order to protect the memory of events, periods and persons significant for the life of an individual, family, social group or the community as a whole.

We examined how sites of consciencecould and should look like in practice through realistically designed scientific research in the field, applying the latest multidisciplinary theory experiences. The aforementioned research was conducted in 2012 and the first quarter of 2013 in the Brčko District of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In addition to providing an insight into the state of monuments and the memorialization processes in the region, the research included a series of individual interviews and consultations with the focus groups. The highlighted question was what do we remember and what do we forget? How does the past determine the present and shape the future? What are the relations between memory and monuments, archives and museums? How to understand the dual nature of the monument: as a means of ideologically related memory and/or as a constant source of creative development and new memories? In what way is cultural tourism associated with memory? How a memorial commemorating traumatic past events can spur interests of the new, young generations, whose ancestors participated in the events which they, for all intents and purposes, do not remember? Do memorials have an expiry date? What can prolong their life? Can universality of themes or design contribute to that?

There is no manual, rule or prescription as to how the memorials should look like, nor is there a guarantee that they will fulfil their purpose. What is the aim of creating sites of conscience? Regret? Learning? To remember the past and confront its contemporary legacy? There is not a single correct answer, as there is not a single obstacle. It takes a lot of will and courage to tackle the difficult histories in sensitive political circumstances. If we add the insufficient government support to the considerations, the work appears to be in vain. Nevertheless, things can change systemically; but if the actors and the victims themselves lack the power to reconcile, it becomes a Sisyphean task.

Still, as the guardians of heritage and museum professionals, we all have the obligation to decide on our roles in this issue.