January 6th: Contestation and Fragmentation

The cultural trauma inflicted by the January 6th insurrection was not indelibly inscribed on America’s consciousness that day or in the weeks of fallout that followed. Rather, it has been and will continue to be a historical event under construction. This event is one of considerable contestation, with party membership largely informing on what side one stands. Democrats seek to construct the event as a cultural trauma, one which affected all Americans via the threat it posed to America’s sacred institutions. Republicans, on the other hand, construct the event as an ultimately insignificant riot without any serious repercussions. While both sides make claims pointing toward an objective truth, how future generations will remember the event remains up in the air. For now, the contested nature of this event in our collective memory suggests that commemoration will remain fragmented, deepening our existing political divide.

 January 6th, 2022 marked the first anniversary of the insurrection, prompting narrative construction and dramaturgical performance by both Democrats and Republicans. My previous two blog posts have outlined the Democratic and Republican strategies for constructing this event in greater detail. In this post, I’ll examine how these strategies conflicted and the initial indications of their persuasiveness among the public. Succinctly, Democrats hope to construct January 6th as a national trauma, one that represents the dangers of the misinformation, voter suppression, and radical hatred that characterized Donald Trump’s time in office. The insurrection was an attempt to destroy America’s institutions and is perhaps representative of what might happen if Republicans again rise to power. Republicans, on the other hand, construct January 6th as a non-traumatic, forgettable blemish on America’s collective memory. It was a riot akin to other contemporary violent protests that the Republican party does not bear responsibility for. These constructions are incompatible. One can not remember January 6th as both an unforgettable trauma and an inconsequential riot. 

The collective memory, however, is not a monolith. It offers room for such contestation. Polling indicates that the collective acceptance of January 6th as a cultural trauma is far from unanimous. 49% of Americans consider January 6th an insurrection and a threat to democracy while 25% consider it to be a constitutionally protected protest and 19% say it was an unfortunate occurrence without future significance. These interpretations correspond to the Democrat and Republican narratives, a connection further solidified by the party of poll respondents (Treisman 2022). These findings indicate that the narratives of both carrier groups are persuasive internally but not externally. Democrats largely accept the Democrat trauma narrative and Republicans accept the GOP’s non-traumatic one. It should be noted that such polarization is par for the course when constructing cultural traumas. Yale sociologist Jeffrey Alexander characterizes this process as one which is “contingent, highly contested, and sometimes highly polarizing” (2011:309), a description that certainly seems to match this case.

This mnemonic gridlock has interesting potential implications for January 6th’s commemoration as a collective trauma or non-trauma. Lori Holyfield and Clifford Beacham’s examination of contested memory can help us to better understand January 6th’s complex commemoration. Holyfield and Beacham suggest that sites of commemoration for contested historical events are either multivocal or fragmented (2011:449). Multivocal sites allow those with conflicting memories of an event to share commemorative space, with multiple perspectives being lent credence. The Vietnam Veteran’s Memorial, for example, commemorates those who served without taking a polarizing stance on the conflict. The contradictory narratives constructed around January 6th make this instance seem unlikely. Fragmented sites of memory fail to allow for multiple interpretations, necessitating the establishment of multiple sites to commemorate the memories of different collectivities. The current divide between the narrative constructions of January 6th suggests that fragmentation seems the most likely of these two options. It can already be identified, with sparse or no Republican turnout at many of the events to commemorate the anniversary of the insurrection. Democrats and those who accept their narrative will likely continue to commemorate the event separately from Republicans who may not commemorate the event at all (see below). The ongoing fragmentation does not, however, render current political construction moot. History has shown us that narratives can shift and points of contestation can subside. The groundwork laid by both carrier groups will have definite implications for the event’s place in the collective memory even if these implications are uncertain at present.

References

Alexander, Jeffrey. 2011. "Toward a Cultural Theory of Trauma." Pp. 307-10 in The Collective Memory Reader. Edited by Jeffrey K. Olick, Vered Vintizky-Seroussi, & Daniel Levy. New York: Oxford University Press.

Holyfield, Lori and Clifford Beacham. 2011. “Memory Brokers, Shameful Pasts, and Civil War Commemoration.” Journal of Black Studies 42(3):436-56.

Treisman, Rachel. 2022. “New poll shows most Americans worry about democracy but see Jan 6. along party lines.” NPR, January 6. Retrieved May 9, 2022 (https://www.npr.org/live-updates/jan-6-anniversary-events).