(Ne)željeno nasleđe u prostorima pamćenja : Slobodne zone bolnih uspomena

Abstract

Kada je kraj XX veka doneo etnički motivisane sukobe u Evropi, ali i neprijateljstva unutar granica represivnih režima u drugim delovima sveta, bilo je jasno da nijedan postojeći način pamćenja i didaktičkog delovanja u pravcu neponavljanja zločina nije ostvario rezultat. Na krilaticu never again senku je bacilo novo, neželjeno nasleđe te se opravdano postavilo pitanje - ako to nasleđe treba čuvati, koji bi bio najzahvalniji model za to? Kroz promišljanja o povezivanju sećanja, inače elementa neopipljive baštine, sa fizičkim prostorom, te istraživanja kako taj odnos interpretirati kao muzeološku / heritološku temu iskristalisao se i odgovor na gore postavljenu nedoumicu. Rešenje se pronašlo u mestima buđenja savesti, jedinstvenim modelima očuvanja kolektivne memorije i disonantnog nasleđa u tranzicionim društvima koja su u bliskoj prošlosti pretrpela masovne zločine. Reč je o fenomenima koji obuhvataju elemente mnogih ranijih vidova memorijalizacije, a svoju misiju postižu ispitivanjem odnosa između kulturnog identiteta, svakodnevnog života, politike, pamćenja i prostora. Uz nezaobilaznu emotivnu i pedagošku funkciju, mesta buđenja savesti treba da budu svedoci kako su se pojedinci odnosili prema sukobima u prošlosti, međusobna veza sa ljudima u nekim drugačijim okolnostima, ali i prostor od poverenja za savladavanje novih stanovišta. Najveći izazov u postizanju tih ciljeva svakako je prilagođavanje komemorativne umetnosti potrebama lokalnog stanovništva, specifičnom kontekstu i kulturi. Iz perspektive tranzicione pravde, gde se ovaj termin prvi put pominje, mesta buđenja savesti su deo procesa memorijalizacije u domenu simboličkih reparacija. Memorijalizacija je proces kreiranja javnih memorijala, a javni memorijali obuhvataju različite projekte i aktivnosti koji se dešavaju u javnoj sferi, u želji da zaštite sećanje na događaje, periode i ličnosti od značaja za život određene individue, porodice, društvene grupe ili zajednicu u celini. Ne postoji priručnik niti pravilo niti recept kako memorijali treba da izgledaju, niti ima garancija da će obavljati svoju funkciju. Šta je cilj pravljenja mesta buđenja savesti? Žaljenje? Učenje? Pamćenje prošlosti i suprotstavljanje njenom savremenom nasleđu? Nema jednog tačnog odgovora, kao što nema ni samo jedne prepreke. Potrebno je mnogo volje i hrabrosti da se latimo teških istorija u osetljivim političkim okolnostima. Još ako nedostaje podrška države, deluje uzaludno. Premda se te takozvane sistemske stvari mogu promeniti, ako među samim akterima i žrtvama ne postoji snaga da se pomire međusobno, posao postaje Sizifov. Pa ipak, kao čuvari/ke baštine i muzejski profesionalci/ke, svi mi imamo obavezu da odlučimo koja će biti naša uloga u tome.

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 heritage in 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 conscience should 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 conscience are 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. 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.