Introduction and Research Contextualization: Mediating Decolonial Memory Through Contested Public Monuments

This comparative study embarks on an exploration of post-1945 public monuments and their intricate relationship with decolonial memory, serving as a critical lens through which societies grapple with, redefine, and often contest their pasts. Situated within the burgeoning academic discourse on public art, urban studies, and memory studies, this research delves into how material forms in public spaces become dynamic sites for the mediation of “contested histories”—narratives that are not merely disputed or reinterpreted, but actively reflect ongoing struggles over social power, identity, and values within diverse citizenries. Public monuments, far from being static historical markers, are vibrant arenas where collective memory is continuously negotiated, particularly in contexts marked by legacies of colonialism, war, and systemic injustice.

The selection of Berlin, Cape Town, Seoul, and Richmond as case studies is deliberate, chosen for their distinct yet interconnected historical trajectories concerning these very themes. Berlin, a city synonymous with the aftermath of World War II and the Cold War, offers insights into confronting totalitarian pasts and reunification. Cape Town presents a compelling case for examining the dismantling of apartheid and the ongoing struggle for decolonization. Seoul provides a unique perspective on post-war reconstruction, national division, and the complex relationship with colonial occupation. Finally, Richmond, Virginia, serves as a crucial site for understanding the re-evaluation of Confederate monuments and the broader movement for racial justice in the United States. Despite their varied historical contexts, these four cities commonly face the core challenge of addressing traumatic histories, challenging hegemonic narratives, and fostering social reconciliation or transformation through public monuments, thereby offering a rich ground for cross-cultural comparison.

The core research question guiding this inquiry is how the specific aesthetic elements of form, inscription, and siting within these monuments actively mediate contested histories. Here, “aesthetic elements” encompass not only visual appeal but also the materiality, sensory experience, and symbolic meaning embedded within the monument, while “civic reception” extends beyond simple public opinion to involve dynamic processes of public engagement, interpretation, contestation, and the evolving construction of meaning. This involves scrutinizing the visual language, textual narratives, and spatial placement of these public artworks to understand their intended and unintended effects on public memory and civic identity. A significant challenge lies in connecting these aesthetic considerations to civic reception—how these monuments are perceived, engaged with, and contested by diverse publics—without descending into a reductive, fact-finding exercise akin to a “legal brief.” Instead, this study aims to transcend mere judgments of right or wrong, or simple factual enumeration, by fostering a nuanced, interpretive understanding of complex human experiences and artistic expressions. It fully acknowledges the inherent ambiguities and contradictions within public memory, thereby revealing the profound mechanisms by which monuments function as dynamic cultural fields. To maintain analytical depth and manageability, the study commits to a focused corpus of two to three public works per city, ensuring intensive engagement with each site. This focused approach will be complemented by a robust methodology integrating detailed field notes—capturing the lived experience and immediate context of the monuments—with extensive archival research, providing historical depth and tracing the evolution of their meanings and receptions over time. Through this interdisciplinary approach, the study seeks to illuminate the profound ways in which public monuments shape, and are shaped by, ongoing struggles over historical narratives and decolonial futures.

Conceptual Framework: Defining Aesthetics and Civic Reception in Decolonial Contexts

This study, to rigorously analyze how public monuments mediate contested histories, will construct a robust conceptual framework that transcends conventional understandings of “aesthetics” and “civic reception.” In this research, “aesthetics” is conceived not merely as the visual appeal or formal qualities of a monument, but as a multi-sensory and performative dimension encompassing materialities, textures, spatial relationships, and even the sounds and atmospheres evoked by the artwork. This broader definition acknowledges that monuments are experienced through the body and senses, and that their aesthetic impact extends to their tactile presence, their scale in relation to the human body, and their capacity to provoke emotional and psychological responses. Furthermore, aesthetics includes the performative aspects of monuments – how they invite or repel interaction, how they shape movement through public space, and how they become backdrops for rituals, protests, or everyday life. This expanded understanding is crucial for decolonial contexts, where the aesthetic choices of monuments often embody power structures, historical erasures, or resistances, and where sensory experiences can trigger collective memories or traumas. This extended aesthetic understanding forms the basis for comprehending how monuments are perceived and responded to in the public sphere, thereby leading to our definition of “civic reception.”

“Civic reception” is delineated far beyond simple public opinion polls or static notions of audience response. Instead, it encompasses a dynamic and evolving process of public engagement, interpretation, contestation, and meaning-making. Civic reception acknowledges that monuments are not passively received but actively interpreted, debated, and even refashioned by diverse publics over time. This includes formal and informal interactions, individual contemplation, collective rituals, artistic interventions, acts of vandalism, and public protests. It recognizes that meaning is inherently fluid and context-dependent, shaped by shifting socio-political landscapes, generational perspectives, and ongoing decolonial struggles. For instance, a monument initially erected to celebrate colonial triumph might later be re-interpreted as a symbol of oppression, leading to calls for its removal or recontextualization. This framework therefore seeks to capture the lived experience of monuments within their urban fabric, understanding them as sites of ongoing dialogue and negotiation.

Central to this study is the systematic establishment of theoretical links between these expanded notions of aesthetics and civic reception. We will delve into how aesthetic choices in monument design – such as material selection (e.g., bronze, stone, ephemeral installations), scale (imposing vs. intimate), iconography (heroic figures vs. abstract forms), and siting (central square vs. marginalized space) – profoundly influence how monuments are experienced and understood, thereby shaping public memory, identity formation, and decolonial discourse within diverse urban settings. To unpack these complex interrelations, this study draws upon a multidisciplinary theoretical armature.

In the field of art history, we will employ reception theory (e.g., Jauss, Iser) to analyze how the “reader” or “viewer” actively constructs meaning, while public art theory (e.g., Kwon, Deutsche) will illuminate the contested nature of art in public space. Monument studies (e.g., Senie, Savage) offers a historical and critical perspective on the evolution and function of commemorative structures. Memory studies provides a crucial lens, with concepts such as collective memory (Halbwachs), traumatic memory (LaCapra), and counter-memory (Foucault, Nora) being vital for understanding how societies grapple with difficult pasts and how marginalized narratives emerge. Urban studies contributes through public space theory (Lefebvre, Harvey), analyzing how monuments shape and are shaped by urban environments, and urban semiotics, interpreting the city as a text embedded with cultural meanings. Finally, decolonial studies, including subaltern studies (Spivak, Guha) and postcolonial critique of public space (Said, Bhabha), provides the critical lens to expose power asymmetries, challenge colonial narratives, and foreground the voices and experiences that have been historically marginalized or silenced in public commemoration. By integrating these diverse theoretical perspectives, the framework aims to provide a nuanced understanding of how aesthetic forms become powerful agents in the ongoing process of decolonizing memory and reimagining public space.

Methodological Strategies for Bridging Aesthetics and Civic Reception

To effectively bridge the analytical gap between the aesthetic qualities of public monuments and their civic reception, this study will employ a multi-faceted methodological approach, integrating rigorous aesthetic analysis with diverse qualitative and interpretive methods for data collection on public engagement. This section outlines the specific tools and strategies for dissecting “form, inscription, and siting” and subsequently linking these analyses to empirical data on how these monuments are experienced, understood, and contested by various publics. Crucially, this methodology is designed to capture the inherent ambiguities and contradictions in public memory, focusing on interpretation and process rather than prescriptive conclusions, thereby deliberately avoiding the pitfalls of a “legal brief” trajectory.

Aesthetic Analysis: Deconstructing Form, Inscription, and Siting

The aesthetic analysis will systematically dissect the visual, material, and spatial qualities of each chosen monument, moving beyond superficial descriptions to uncover how these elements contribute to meaning-making and influence reception. For each analytical component, we will explicitly consider its potential impact on civic reception, establishing the crucial bridge between aesthetic choices and public engagement.

• Semiotic Analysis of Symbols and Iconography: This approach will decode the signs, symbols, and iconography embedded within the monument’s design to understand their intended meanings and potential for re-interpretation. For instance, analyzing the choice of figures (e.g., heroic, allegorical, anonymous), their gestures, and the objects they hold can reveal underlying narratives and power dynamics. The use of specific symbols (e.g., national emblems, religious motifs, abstract forms) will be examined for their historical connotations and their resonance within contemporary decolonial discourses. This includes scrutinizing how traditional symbols might be subverted or re-appropriated in post-colonial contexts. Crucially, we will then investigate how these symbolic choices and their re-interpretations provoke specific civic responses, such as feelings of pride, alienation, resistance, or indifference, as evidenced in public discourse and interactions.
• Formal Analysis of Composition and Scale: This involves a detailed examination of the monument’s formal elements such as composition (arrangement of elements), scale (its size in relation to human viewers and surrounding architecture), proportion, texture, and color. How does the monument’s scale dictate its presence and impact on the viewer – does it overwhelm, invite contemplation, or challenge? Is the composition static or dynamic, and what emotional or intellectual responses does this evoke? For example, a towering, monolithic structure might convey authority and permanence, while a fragmented or ephemeral installation could suggest rupture or ongoing transformation. The choice of materials and their finish (e.g., polished granite, rough concrete, rusted metal) also contributes significantly to the monument’s sensory and symbolic qualities. This analysis will directly inform our understanding of how formal qualities shape public perception, influencing whether a monument is perceived as imposing or inviting, and how these perceptions contribute to its acceptance or contestation within the public sphere.
• Material Analysis of Chosen Media: Beyond their visual properties, the materials themselves carry significant historical, cultural, and economic connotations. This analysis will delve into the type of materials used (e.g., bronze, marble, steel, recycled materials, ephemeral media like light or sound), their provenance, and the techniques employed in their fabrication. For instance, the choice of bronze for a heroic figure might evoke classical traditions and permanence, while the use of salvaged materials could signify resilience or critique. The material’s durability, patina over time, and its interaction with environmental factors will also be considered, as these aspects contribute to the monument’s evolving narrative and perceived longevity. We will specifically explore how the material choices resonate with or challenge collective memories and decolonial narratives, examining how the perceived value, origin, or decay of materials influences public sentiment and engagement.
• Spatial Analysis of the Monument’s Relationship to its Urban Context and Surrounding Architecture: This critical dimension examines the monument’s physical placement within the urban fabric. Is it centrally located in a prominent public square, or is it situated in a marginalized, easily overlooked space? How does its siting interact with existing architectural landmarks, historical sites, or everyday pedestrian flows? This analysis will consider factors such as visibility, accessibility, and the monument’s role in shaping public pathways and gathering points. For example, a monument placed atop a hill might command authority, while one integrated into a park bench could invite intimate interaction. The relationship between the monument and its immediate surroundings (e.g., open space, dense urban environment, natural landscape) profoundly influences how it is encountered, experienced, and integrated into the daily lives of city dwellers. Furthermore, the analysis will consider how the monument’s orientation, lines of sight, and potential for interaction with other urban elements contribute to its overall spatial narrative. This spatial understanding is crucial for linking aesthetics to reception, as a monument’s location and its interaction with the urban environment directly impact its visibility, accessibility, and potential to become a focal point for public gathering, protest, or daily indifference.

Civic Reception Data Collection and Analysis (Qualitative and Interpretive Methods)

Understanding civic reception requires moving beyond traditional archival research to capture the dynamic, often contested, and evolving nature of public engagement with monuments. This study will primarily employ qualitative and interpretive methods to gather rich, nuanced data, focusing on the multiplicity of meanings and experiences rather than a singular, definitive truth.

• Qualitative Fieldwork: This will form a cornerstone of the data collection, providing direct insights into how publics interact with and interpret the monuments in their natural settings.

  • Structured Observations of Public Interaction: Researchers will conduct systematic observations at monument sites, documenting how people move around, look at, touch, photograph, or ignore the monuments. This includes observing patterns of gathering, individual contemplation, and different forms of interaction (e.g., tourists taking selfies, protesters holding rallies, local residents using the space for recreation). Field notes will capture details about body language, expressions, and the general atmosphere surrounding the monument at different times of day and week. These observations will be critically analyzed to discern how specific aesthetic features (e.g., a monument’s height, its material texture, or its accessible base) facilitate or hinder particular modes of public interaction and engagement.
  • Informal Interviews with Diverse Publics: Short, semi-structured interviews will be conducted with a range of individuals encountered at or near the monument sites. This includes local residents, tourists, activists, students, and workers. Questions will be open-ended, designed to elicit personal interpretations, emotional responses, historical knowledge, and opinions on the monument’s relevance or controversial status. The aim is to capture a diversity of voices, recognizing that “the public” is not a monolithic entity. Interview data will be analyzed thematically to identify recurring patterns of interpretation and contestation, explicitly linking these public narratives back to the monument’s form, inscription, and siting.
  • Analysis of Public Rituals or Protests Associated with the Monuments: Many contested monuments become sites for organized public rituals (e.g., commemorative ceremonies, annual gatherings) or protests (e.g., demonstrations for removal, re-contextualization, or counter-commemoration). Researchers will document these events through observation, photography/videography (with consent where applicable), and analysis of associated materials (e.g., protest signs, speeches, performance art). This provides crucial insights into how monuments are actively re-signified, challenged, or embraced through collective action. This analysis will specifically examine how the aesthetic and spatial characteristics of the monuments enable or constrain these public performances, and how these performances, in turn, re-shape the monument’s civic meaning.

• Archival Research Expansion: While official archives offer foundational historical context, this study will expand archival research to include less formal, often more immediate, sources of public discourse and sentiment.

  • Local Newspaper Articles and Community Group Newsletters: These sources often provide a rich tapestry of local opinions, debates, and community-led initiatives concerning public monuments, especially those that have become subjects of controversy. They can track the evolution of public discourse over time. We will analyze how aesthetic descriptions and interpretations of monuments within these media contribute to or reflect public debates, tracing the discursive links between visual qualities and civic arguments.
  • Social Media Discussions and Online Forums: Platforms like Twitter, Facebook groups, Reddit, and local online forums are increasingly significant sites for public debate about urban spaces and historical memory. Sentiment analysis tools (where appropriate and ethical) can be used to gauge overall public sentiment, while qualitative analysis of comments and threads can reveal arguments, counter-arguments, and shared experiences related to specific monuments. This will allow us to identify how specific aesthetic features or inscriptions become flashpoints for online discussion, revealing the digital dimension of civic reception and its connection to material forms.
  • Oral Histories: Conducting oral history interviews with individuals who have long-standing connections to the monuments or the historical events they commemorate can provide invaluable first-hand accounts of changing perceptions, personal memories, and intergenerational transmission of historical narratives. This includes interviews with community elders, descendants of historical figures, or individuals involved in past debates or artistic interventions concerning the monuments. Oral histories will illuminate the deeply personal and often embodied experiences of monuments, providing rich qualitative data on how aesthetic elements evoke specific memories, emotions, and intergenerational dialogues.

• Digital Humanities Approaches: Leveraging digital tools can enhance the analysis of large volumes of public engagement data, serving as a complement to qualitative methods rather than a replacement.

  • Sentiment Analysis of Online Comments: While requiring careful interpretation and an understanding of its limitations, automated sentiment analysis can provide a broad brushstroke understanding of the emotional tone (positive, negative, neutral) associated with online discussions about monuments. This can help identify periods of heightened controversy or consensus. This initial quantitative insight will then guide deeper qualitative analysis of specific comments and threads, allowing us to understand the nuances behind the sentiment and its connection to particular aesthetic triggers.
  • Mapping Public Engagement Data: Geographic Information Systems (GIS) can be used to map locations of protests, community meetings, or digitally tagged photos related to monuments, revealing spatial patterns of engagement and contestation within the urban landscape. This helps visualize the “civic reception footprint” of a monument. By overlaying aesthetic data (e.g., monument type, scale, siting) with mapped public engagement, we can visually identify correlations and patterns that suggest how spatial aesthetics influence the geography of civic reception.

• Participatory and Experiential Methods: These methods actively seek to capture the lived experience and subjective interpretations of monuments, emphasizing the dynamic and often ambiguous nature of public memory.

  • Public Ethnography: This involves immersing the researcher within the public spaces where monuments are situated, observing and documenting both spontaneous and organized public interactions over an extended period. It allows for an understanding of the monument’s role in daily life, its integration into routines, and its capacity to evoke particular atmospheres or behaviors. This long-term engagement helps to uncover subtle nuances and evolving meanings that might be missed in shorter observations. Ethnographic insights will be crucial for understanding how the aesthetic presence of a monument shapes daily routines and spontaneous interactions, revealing the subtle ways in which form and siting are integrated into or resisted by lived experience.
  • In-depth Oral History Interviews with Diverse Stakeholders: Beyond informal interviews, structured, in-depth interviews will be conducted with key stakeholders. This includes artists involved in creating or re-contextualizing monuments, policymakers responsible for public art decisions, community activists leading campaigns related to monuments, local residents living in proximity to the sites, and historians or cultural critics. These interviews will delve into their perspectives on the monument’s design, its historical evolution, its impact on the community, and their vision for its future. This provides a multi-vocal understanding of the monument’s significance from various vantage points. These interviews will explicitly explore how stakeholders perceive the aesthetic choices of monuments and how these choices have influenced public discourse and policy decisions, providing a multi-layered perspective on the aesthetic-reception nexus.

• Ethical Considerations: Given the sensitive nature of contested histories and decolonial contexts, ethical considerations will be paramount throughout the research process. The research design is committed to fostering an interpretive understanding of complex human experiences, acknowledging the inherent ambiguities and contradictions in public memory rather than seeking definitive judgments.

  • Informed Consent: All participants in interviews or oral histories will provide informed consent, understanding the purpose of the research, their right to withdraw, and how their data will be used and protected.
  • Anonymity and Confidentiality: Where appropriate, participants’ anonymity and the confidentiality of their responses will be maintained, particularly when discussing sensitive or controversial opinions.
  • Respect for Diverse Perspectives: The research will approach all perspectives with respect, even those that are contradictory or challenge dominant narratives. The goal is to understand the multiplicity of interpretations and experiences, not to judge or validate specific viewpoints. This commitment to nuance is central to avoiding a “legal brief” approach.
  • Researcher Positionality: The researcher will maintain an awareness of their own positionality and potential biases, acknowledging how their background and perspectives might influence data collection and interpretation. Reflexivity will be a continuous process, ensuring that the analysis remains interpretive and open-ended.
  • Community Engagement: Where feasible and appropriate, opportunities for community engagement will be explored, ensuring that the research benefits the communities whose histories are being examined and that findings are communicated in accessible ways. This includes being mindful of power dynamics when researching communities that have historically been marginalized or exploited, and ensuring that the research contributes to ongoing dialogues rather than imposing external conclusions.

By integrating these robust aesthetic analytical tools with comprehensive qualitative and interpretive methods for understanding civic reception, this study aims to build a compelling and nuanced argument about how form, inscription, and siting actively mediate contested histories. The emphasis throughout will be on revealing the complex, non-linear interactions between aesthetic choices and public engagement, providing empirical grounding for theoretical claims while deliberately embracing the fluidity and contested nature of memory, thereby moving beyond a reductive, fact-finding exercise. The data analysis will involve iterative coding and thematic analysis of qualitative data, drawing explicit connections between observed aesthetic features and recorded public responses, and employing narrative synthesis to weave together diverse perspectives into a coherent, yet multifaceted, understanding of each monument’s role in decolonial memory.

Comparative Analysis Framework: Integrating Multi-City Data for Cross-Contextual Insights

A central objective of this study is to move beyond individual case studies to generate robust comparative insights into how public monuments mediate contested histories. This section outlines a systematic framework for comparing and contrasting the intricate interplay of aesthetics and civic reception across Berlin, Cape Town, Seoul, and Richmond. This framework is designed to identify commonalities, divergences, and unique manifestations of contested memory, ensuring that the comparative analysis contributes to a broader understanding of global decolonial processes without homogenizing distinct local experiences. The study will employ a thematic cross-case comparison method, systematically contrasting the four cities across the analytical lenses outlined below to reveal shared patterns and explain differences.

The comparative analysis will be structured around four core analytical lenses, applied consistently to each city’s chosen monuments:

1. Historical Trajectory and Thematic Focus: This lens will first map the specific historical contexts (e.g., post-WWII division and reunification in Berlin, the anti-apartheid struggle in Cape Town, post-colonial nation-building and division in Seoul, and Civil Rights and racial justice movements in Richmond) that shape the contested histories in each city. This involves understanding the dominant narratives, the suppressed memories, and the political landscapes that inform monument creation and reception.

2. Aesthetic Strategies and Meaning Generation: This lens will compare how diverse aesthetic choices (form, inscription, siting) are employed across cities to either mediate, perpetuate, or challenge contested histories. We will investigate how abstract forms might facilitate more open interpretation compared to figurative ones, how multilingual inscriptions function in diverse linguistic contexts, and the role a monument’s integration (or isolation) within the urban fabric plays in its reception and potential for protest. This analysis will particularly focus on the aesthetics of politics, exploring how aesthetic forms inherently carry political meanings and trigger social responses, and how perception and interpretation bridge the gap between aesthetic choices and civic reception.

3. Dynamics of Civic Reception and Public Engagement: We will compare the patterns and intensity of civic reception, examining how publics in different cities engage with, interpret, and contest monuments. This includes analyzing the types of public interactions (e.g., reverence, indifference, vandalism, protest), the dominant discourses surrounding the monuments (e.g., calls for removal, re-contextualization, preservation), and the roles of various stakeholders (e.g., state, community groups, artists, activists) in shaping these dynamics.

4. Decolonial Interventions and Diverse Outcomes: This lens focuses on how decolonial movements specifically interact with and influence the monuments. We will compare strategies for decolonizing public space—whether through physical alteration, alternative commemorations, discursive challenges, or artistic interventions—and assess their varying degrees of success or ongoing challenges in each urban context. Here, “decolonization” encompasses diverse manifestations such as challenging colonial symbols, re-narrating national histories, critiquing racist legacies, and re-evaluating war memories.

To illustrate, consider hypothetical applications. In Berlin, the Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe can be analyzed for its abstract form and experiential siting, which invite individual contemplation rather than prescribed narrative. Comparative analysis would then focus on how its abstract aesthetics facilitate a particular civic reception of traumatic memory, contrasting it with more didactic monuments in other cities. In Cape Town, the Statue of Cecil Rhodes (its legacy and ongoing debates persist despite its removal from the UCT campus) offers a powerful case study for examining the aesthetic strategies of colonial monuments and the intense civic reception characterized by direct protest and demands for de-installation. The analysis would explore how its imposing form and prominent siting became direct targets of decolonial critique. In Seoul, the Statue of Admiral Yi Sun-sin in Gwanghwamun Plaza, while seemingly uncontroversial, can be examined for how its heroic aesthetic and central siting reinforce a particular nationalistic narrative, and how this might be subtly challenged or re-interpreted by contemporary civic movements or alternative historical perspectives. Finally, in Richmond, the former Robert E. Lee Monument on Monument Avenue (now removed) exemplifies a highly contested work. Its grand scale, equestrian form, and prominent siting embodied white supremacist narratives, directly leading to decades of civic protest and its eventual removal. The comparative analysis would delve into the protracted process of its civic contestation, directly linking its aesthetic qualities to its role in perpetuating a contested history and its ultimate decolonial outcome. By systematically applying these lenses across diverse examples, the study will reveal how the intricate relationship between aesthetic choices and civic reception shapes the ongoing struggle over memory in a globally interconnected yet locally distinct decolonial landscape.

Strategies for Avoiding a “Legal Brief” Trajectory: Cultivating Nuance and Interpretive Depth

A central concern of this study is to transcend the reductive approach of a “legal brief”—which typically seeks singular truths, definitive judgments, and prescriptive conclusions—and instead cultivate an academic, interpretive, and profoundly nuanced voice. Our aim is to prioritize the understanding of complex human experiences and artistic expressions within the dynamic realm of public memory. This necessitates a deliberate methodological and rhetorical approach that embraces ambiguity, encourages multi-perspectival interpretation, and foregrounds the iterative processes of memory-making.

Firstly, the study will consistently emphasize interpretation over prescription, actively steering clear of definitive pronouncements. Rather than seeking to establish a single “correct” understanding or judgment of a monument’s meaning or impact, the analysis will delve into the multiple, often conflicting, interpretations and receptions generated by these public artworks. This involves acknowledging that meaning is not inherent or fixed, but actively constructed by diverse publics through their engagement with the monument’s aesthetics, historical context, and evolving socio-political landscape. To avoid prescriptive language, we will refrain from using terms such as “should,” “must,” or “correctly,” opting instead for neutral and pluralistic expressions like “some interpret,” “others contend,” “historical documents suggest,” or “public responses exhibit diverse perspectives.” Our role is that of an interpreter, illuminating the rich tapestry of meanings—both intended and unintended, dominant and subversive—that accrue around these sites, rather than acting as an arbiter advocating for one particular reading.

Secondly, the research will consciously incorporate ambiguity and contradiction, recognizing them as intrinsic to contested histories. Public memory, particularly in decolonial contexts, is rarely monolithic or straightforward; it is inherently fraught with unresolved tensions, paradoxes, and competing narratives. This study will not shy away from these complexities but will instead embrace them as integral to understanding the lived experience of monuments. This means analyzing how a single monument can simultaneously evoke reverence and resentment, how its aesthetic elements can be interpreted in vastly different ways, and how its meaning can shift dramatically across generations or political shifts. To effectively present this “messy, dynamic reality,” we will employ strategies such as juxtaposition, presenting contrasting or even opposing viewpoints, sentiments, and historical narratives side-by-side to allow the reader to discern the inherent tensions. We may also utilize rhetorical devices like irony or paradox to underscore the multifaceted nature of a monument’s significance, and structure our analysis to first present a dominant interpretation before introducing its underlying contradictions or overlooked perspectives.

Thirdly, the study will deploy sophisticated narrative and rhetorical strategies to seamlessly weave together aesthetic analysis, historical context, and empirical reception data into a compelling and insightful argument. This goes beyond dry, factual reporting to employ evocative language and analytical depth that captures the affective dimensions of public monuments. For instance, instead of merely stating that a monument evokes a certain feeling, the narrative will articulate how its form, inscription, and siting contribute to that emotional resonance. Our narrative approach will emphasize the “life cycle” of specific monuments—from their conception and construction to their evolving use, controversies, and potential transformations. We will integrate individual stories, drawing from oral histories of artists, protesters, or community residents, to illuminate the broader historical narratives through personal experience. Furthermore, the narrative will highlight the temporal dimension, emphasizing how a monument’s meaning evolves over time rather than being a fixed attribute. Case studies will be presented not as isolated data points, but as interconnected narratives that reveal broader patterns and unique local specificities, crafting prose that is both intellectually rigorous and engaging, allowing the reader to grasp the profound human stakes embedded in these public art forms.

Finally, a core principle will be to focus on process and dialogue rather than solely on definitive outcomes. Public monuments are not endpoints of historical memory but catalysts for ongoing dialogue, debate, and renegotiation. The research will highlight the iterative nature of memory-making, showcasing how monuments function as sites for continuous public discourse, even when contentious. This involves analyzing not just what a monument is, but what it does—how it instigates conversations, provokes protests, inspires counter-memorials, or fosters new community formations. By emphasizing this dynamic process and the role of monuments in fostering public dialogue, the study will underscore the lived experience of contested histories, demonstrating how these structures are not static objects but active participants in the ongoing work of shaping collective identity and future trajectories. Moreover, we acknowledge the researcher’s role in this ongoing dialogue. Our research findings will be disseminated in accessible ways to foster broader public engagement, ensuring that the study itself contributes to the very dialogue it analyzes. We commit to ethical research practices that respect diverse voices and acknowledge the provisional and open-ended nature of our conclusions, leaving space for future interpretations and ongoing public discourse. This approach ensures that the research remains deeply interpretive and human-centered, steering clear of any resemblance to a legalistic summation.