Toppling monuments to people

As the racial justice movement fells statues of former leaders and aims to raise new ones to other historical figures, the question must be asked: Why not look deeper for the causes of progress?

Reuters
An image of late Rep. John Lewis, a pioneer of the civil rights movement, is projected on the statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee in Richmond, Virginia, July 19.

The passing of John Lewis, one of the last great icons of the U.S. civil rights movement, has served as a reminder that the torch of social justice has passed to a new generation. It also comes at a time when many Americans are reassessing which past leaders should still be venerated in bronze and stone. Two months after the police killing of a Black man in Minneapolis spawned mass protests, public images have been toppled with an intensity reminiscent of the fall of the Berlin Wall.

More than 120 statues and fountains honoring the Confederacy have been dismantled. At least 14 monuments dedicated to people accused of genocide against Native Americans have fallen. Thirty-three statues of Columbus have been defaced or removed. So have nine statues of seminal figures such as Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and Teddy Roosevelt. In many other countries, statues and street names of slave traders and colonial governors have met a similar response.

This challenge to the old certainties of history reveals a rapid shift in public thought. Already debate is underway about using the emptied pedestals to depict other figures as a way to achieve social reconciliation. Whose likenesses should be cast? Would a major flaw of an otherwise good person rule him or her out? Must a person’s inspiring words be reflected in personal actions?

Perhaps the most important question is this: What exactly are the purposes of venerating a person at all?

One answer to that question lies in the current social justice movement. Like other recent protest movements in Hong Kong, Chile, and Lebanon, the U.S. movement was designed by a few people to bring about social action without centralized leadership and through a heavy reliance on social media. The three women who launched Black Lives Matter, for example, emphasized individual agency and empowerment as the sustaining force.

This tactic of distributed leadership found an echo in at least one tribute to Congressman Lewis. Americans, said former President George W. Bush, “can best honor John’s memory by continuing his journey toward liberty and justice for all.”

There is still a place for holding up men and women whose lives promoted humanity’s advancement. Yet physical depictions of them hardly begin to capture higher qualities of thought that drove their achievements. Their successes relied on a receptivity and embrace of ideals that lifted others to join a cause and were sometimes heard for the first time.

At their best, statues can inspire contemplation of a life driven by high ideals and selfless endeavor. They can nudge people toward reason, conscience, and self-government. Such attributes are available to anyone, with or without a majestic bronze sculpture. The good they bring to others can be monument enough.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.