Touring the Phantom Agent

Recognition, Defacement and the Vietnamese-Australian War Memorial

Scott Brook

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

If the discourse of recognition provides a language with which minority histories might be articulated in public culture, it also introduces what Tony Bennett called the ‘phantom effects’ of rhetoric to sustain an image of ‘community’ (Bennett 1992). In this context, the debunking of such images by the question ‘Who speaks?’ is an option available not only to constituencies thus represented, but also to those government agents who would empower themselves to assess such solicitations. This essay makes a close reading of the use of the discourse of recognition by two public historians in their discussion of the Vietnamese Australian war memorial in Cabramatta, Sydney, and their conclusion that the memorial ‘doesn't belong’ (Hamilton and Ashton 2002). The essay considers how the paradigm of recognitive justice enables the public historian to privilege attention to the normative grammar of public cultural address (who speaks?, who is addressed?) and restrict consideration of the popular uses of the site to those that might testify to ‘neglect’. Given the ‘negative revelations’ that substantiate the public historian's claims, I draw on Michael Taussig's (1999) writing on public secrecy to suggest such critique is intimately involved in the unruly forms of social surplus that animate, and are animated by, defacement
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)133-150
Number of pages18
JournalJournal of Intercultural Studies
Volume27
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2006
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

memorial
historian
discourse
secrecy
privilege
neglect
grammar
rhetoric
justice
minority
paradigm
history
language
community
War Memorials
Public Historians
Touring
Discourse

Cite this

@article{d741fe823793417b85bb8fd4b74807da,
title = "Touring the Phantom Agent: Recognition, Defacement and the Vietnamese-Australian War Memorial",
abstract = "If the discourse of recognition provides a language with which minority histories might be articulated in public culture, it also introduces what Tony Bennett called the ‘phantom effects’ of rhetoric to sustain an image of ‘community’ (Bennett 1992). In this context, the debunking of such images by the question ‘Who speaks?’ is an option available not only to constituencies thus represented, but also to those government agents who would empower themselves to assess such solicitations. This essay makes a close reading of the use of the discourse of recognition by two public historians in their discussion of the Vietnamese Australian war memorial in Cabramatta, Sydney, and their conclusion that the memorial ‘doesn't belong’ (Hamilton and Ashton 2002). The essay considers how the paradigm of recognitive justice enables the public historian to privilege attention to the normative grammar of public cultural address (who speaks?, who is addressed?) and restrict consideration of the popular uses of the site to those that might testify to ‘neglect’. Given the ‘negative revelations’ that substantiate the public historian's claims, I draw on Michael Taussig's (1999) writing on public secrecy to suggest such critique is intimately involved in the unruly forms of social surplus that animate, and are animated by, defacement",
author = "Scott Brook",
year = "2006",
doi = "10.1080/07256860600607900",
language = "English",
volume = "27",
pages = "133--150",
journal = "Journal of Intercultural Studies",
issn = "0725-6868",
publisher = "Taylor and Francis Ltd.",
number = "1",

}

Touring the Phantom Agent : Recognition, Defacement and the Vietnamese-Australian War Memorial. / Brook, Scott.

In: Journal of Intercultural Studies, Vol. 27, No. 1, 2006, p. 133-150.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Touring the Phantom Agent

T2 - Recognition, Defacement and the Vietnamese-Australian War Memorial

AU - Brook, Scott

PY - 2006

Y1 - 2006

N2 - If the discourse of recognition provides a language with which minority histories might be articulated in public culture, it also introduces what Tony Bennett called the ‘phantom effects’ of rhetoric to sustain an image of ‘community’ (Bennett 1992). In this context, the debunking of such images by the question ‘Who speaks?’ is an option available not only to constituencies thus represented, but also to those government agents who would empower themselves to assess such solicitations. This essay makes a close reading of the use of the discourse of recognition by two public historians in their discussion of the Vietnamese Australian war memorial in Cabramatta, Sydney, and their conclusion that the memorial ‘doesn't belong’ (Hamilton and Ashton 2002). The essay considers how the paradigm of recognitive justice enables the public historian to privilege attention to the normative grammar of public cultural address (who speaks?, who is addressed?) and restrict consideration of the popular uses of the site to those that might testify to ‘neglect’. Given the ‘negative revelations’ that substantiate the public historian's claims, I draw on Michael Taussig's (1999) writing on public secrecy to suggest such critique is intimately involved in the unruly forms of social surplus that animate, and are animated by, defacement

AB - If the discourse of recognition provides a language with which minority histories might be articulated in public culture, it also introduces what Tony Bennett called the ‘phantom effects’ of rhetoric to sustain an image of ‘community’ (Bennett 1992). In this context, the debunking of such images by the question ‘Who speaks?’ is an option available not only to constituencies thus represented, but also to those government agents who would empower themselves to assess such solicitations. This essay makes a close reading of the use of the discourse of recognition by two public historians in their discussion of the Vietnamese Australian war memorial in Cabramatta, Sydney, and their conclusion that the memorial ‘doesn't belong’ (Hamilton and Ashton 2002). The essay considers how the paradigm of recognitive justice enables the public historian to privilege attention to the normative grammar of public cultural address (who speaks?, who is addressed?) and restrict consideration of the popular uses of the site to those that might testify to ‘neglect’. Given the ‘negative revelations’ that substantiate the public historian's claims, I draw on Michael Taussig's (1999) writing on public secrecy to suggest such critique is intimately involved in the unruly forms of social surplus that animate, and are animated by, defacement

U2 - 10.1080/07256860600607900

DO - 10.1080/07256860600607900

M3 - Article

VL - 27

SP - 133

EP - 150

JO - Journal of Intercultural Studies

JF - Journal of Intercultural Studies

SN - 0725-6868

IS - 1

ER -