Conclusion

Abstract

Over the course of this book, I have examined the ways in which frames of memory acquire hegemonic dominance when mobilised by the discourses of the public-political sphere, calling for more attention to the biases naturalised by such paradigms through their repetition over time, arguing for greater reflexivity in the relationship between memorative practice and theory, and urging the development of a more diverse culture of memory that seeks to open up, rather than delimit, dialogue and debate about the past. The preceding chapters foreground three frames of memory that have mediated representations of 9/11 across cultural, critical, political, and juridical discourses over the past thirteen years — the rhetoric of trauma, the tropes of the jeremiad, and Americanised Holocaust memory. These transcendental paradigms underscore the simultaneous ubiquity and uniqueness of American suffering by collectivising trauma, nationalising victimhood, and exceptionalising the attacks. In so doing, such templates (implicitly or explicitly) mask other losses from view, perpetuating an introspective and exclusionary memorial culture that is reluctant to acknowledge any mode of contextualising historicity. Accordingly, I suggest that we might productively move towards a montaged memorial culture that is inclusive of a variety of perspectives, agendas, and interpretations, and global in its orientation.