Kenyon’s Ever-developing Past

This week in the archives, my group focused our attention on writing the blurbs that will appear alongside the objects we have curated for our case. This was not an easy task, as we had to write something that properly presented the narrative we are trying to construct. The narrative must adequately explain why we have chosen our specific objects and why we have chosen to order them in this specific way. Although it is easy to explain these choices to each other, putting these explanations down on paper was a more challenging task than expected. We had to deploy our marketing skills to write prompts that were both compelling and precise, qualifying exactly how the artifacts we have chosen are the best representation of Kenyon’s place in the greater world over the past 100 years. One thing that was particularly hard about this was deciding on whose behalf the prompts should be written. Are they coming from the school, shamelessly boasting about its accomplishments over the past century? Are they coming from us students, viewing Kenyon as something we are grateful for? Or, perhaps, are they coming from a strictly historical perspective, viewing Kenyon’s choices dogmatically and therefore critically? I am still not sure which framing we chose, it might even be a combination of a few of these, but I believe we were successful.

This week in class, we continued our reading of Hajar Yazdiha’s The Struggle for the People’s King, learning about how groups selectively orient collective memory to their uses. By doing this, groups either intentionally or unintentionally, shape the foundations of how memories are interpreted forever. Furthermore, groups are therefore not only strategically utilizing a memory, but permanently changing the context in which it is discussed. Yazdiha showcases this through the stories of how very opposing groups have utilized King’s memory in vastly different ways. For example, white Christians frame themselves as “the unfairly oppressed group.” (Yazdiha 57) Whether or not one believes this to be the truth, it is undeniable that the invocation of MLK’s memory is a very useful strategy with which groups can achieve their goals. Yazdiha closes out her argument with a harsh reminder that although some groups are more successful than others, no matter how significant the usage, “the vestiges of the strategic uses of memory remain,” and will withstand the test of time. (Yazdiha 88)

Once again, Yazdiha’s words emphasize to my group the importance of the framing we take in the presentation of our case. Even though it may seem relatively insignificant in the greater Kenyon narrative, the ways in which we frame out objects will permanently change the contexts in which they are discussed. A seemingly harmless framing that we may take on an event such as the assassination of Olaf Palme, has the power to change the way in which he is discussed forever. With an awareness of this, my group decided that instead of talking about Kenyon’s past as something that is one and done, we must frame it in a way that emphasizes that it is always continuing to be formed. Although the Kent State shootings were over 50 years ago now, its history is still being formed today, in the ways in which we discuss and even think about it. There is a language that can be used in the way we write the blurbs that discusses the events in the present, as things still taking place, and this is a language we hope to use in our blurbs and presentations. By doing this, we hope that any ways in which we discuss our events are not taken as the sole interpretation, but rather our personal perspectives on how we view the events as Kenyon students in 2024. 


Works Cited:

YAZDIHA, HAJAR. The Struggle for the People’s King: How Politics Transforms the Memory of the Civil Rights Movement. Princeton University Press, 2023.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Junzo Shono: How We Remember Gambier

Archival and Canon Memory: Understanding Our Present Through Our Past

Hope, Suffering, and The Kenyon College Campus Guide