When terror strikes, the feeling is like the one of holding breath under water. Surreal, and deafening silence overtakes all our senses. We are both present and absent in the moment, seeing but not believing, not having full consciousness of our own senses. The time stands still. Victims and their beloved ones know this very well. Anxiety and fear can strike and hurt as hard as a physical wound. We are worried for our loved ones, for their and our own personal safety.  Such traumatic incidents shatter, otherwise “normal”, sequences of events of our daily lives producing visible and invisible wounds immune to the passing of time.

Terrorist attacks have marked our daily lives and shaped our collective memories making us indirect recipients of violence that societies, victims, survivors, and their loved ones have suffered. This exhibition walks us through the memory lane, to document political, societal, and personal reactions to terrorist attacks. The author of the exhibition, Dr Ana Milosevic has travelled to France, Spain, Belgium, and Norway to investigate the ways in which local, national and EU authorities have addressed memorialisation after terrorism. The key questions underpinning her research were: In what ways memorials and memorialisation support personal and societal recovery after a terrorist attack? Do the victims and/or their relatives have a voice in the memorialisation process? What role will these memorials play for future generations?

A wide variety of stakeholders participate in the memorialisation initiatives to commemorate terror attacks. This includes both the community upon which a harm was inflicted (victims, survivors, and their family members, broader public) and the use of remembrance by institutional actors (e.g., states, the EU, political parties, museums, archives). The intended purposes and produced effects of memorialisation are manifold, and dependent on the constellation of actors that initiate, guide and implement the process, as well as reap its results.

Grassroot memorials created in the aftermath of the attacks at the places of tragedy or at important public spaces are initiated and managed by the society. Using remembrance tools, the society itself becomes affective and empathetic community that uses remembrance therapeutically – to cope with the state of shock and channel a wide variety of emotions such as sadness, anger, grief. Such memorials have a rather short life cycle and can be reenacted annually for the anniversaries when the official memorialisation – led by the authorities – overtakes the remembrance process.

Organised and implemented by local, national or EU authorities the official memorialisation takes many forms. Governmental responses in the aftermath of the tragedy frame the narrative about what had happened offering reassurances of security and justice to the society who too fell victim of the attacks. In a later stage, annual commemorations are organised, and permanent monuments made. In this view, the aim with memorialisation is manifold: it pursues restorative justice efforts for the victims and it inscribes a particular narrative of the occurred in collective memory. For instance, in Spain and France, medals are given to the victims as a token of symbolic recognition. Similarly, national and local heritage institutions are given the opportunity to inscribe the meanings attached to such tragedies in the collective consciousness of the society. The Paris and Brussels case evidence this most prominently, where the Archives conducted important work on collecting and exhibiting memorabilia placed in the memory of the victims at the places of spontaneous memorials.

Memorialisation efforts often serve the needs of specific groups, which makes them a useful mechanism for rebuilding personal, political, legal, or social fabric, for providing promises of security (through preventing repetition), or supporting specific policies such as the anti-radicalisation. This suggests that the success of memorialisation efforts is often evaluated on little more than ‘client satisfaction’; a compromise between the mapped-out needs of the (in)direct beneficiaries of that particular memorialisation effort, and the purposes assigned to it by ‘memory entrepreneurs’, those who in addition to having decision-making powers are responsible for the creation and reinterpretation of memory policies.

Given the understandable lack of expertise in addressing the consequences of mass violence in modern urban space, most of the governmental and local authorities’ responses in terms of memorialisation were made ad-hoc. Such memorialisation strategies are based on examples of “best” practices –  solutions already chosen by other cities and countries that went through similar experiences. These “best” practices relate to the ways in which official ceremonies are organized, speakers selected, and monuments created for the first anniversary. While each case under examination has its own specificities, some common challenges in four cities (Barcelona, Oslo, Brussels and Paris) have emerged during the course of this research.

Time sensitive memorialisation strategies

Societal and personal paths to recovery and coping with the consequences of terrorism travel on different timelines.

The rush to resume ‘normal’ rhythms of life in a wounded city does not allow for timely sedimentation of emotion, trauma and memories in the public space. One-off monuments, created usually for the first anniversary, differ from their spontaneous counterparts that occupied public space in the aftermath of the attacks. The victims and local citizens perceive such permanent monuments as static and not reflective of the emotional impact trauma has produced on society.

While the public recognition and acknowledgment of victims’ experiences remains important, anniversaries bring out a wealth of emotions in victims, survivors and those who are left behind. Especially for the first anniversary, returning to the place of crime can stir up such emotions and set back the victims’ progress in their path of recovery.

Memorialisation mindful
of victims’ memorial needs

Symbolic recognition of victims appears to be more effective when the ownership of one’s own personal experiences, narratives, and endured consequences is maintained.

The community bound by victimhood – victims, survivors, and their family members – often reject or contest memorial meanings and purposes assigned to the official memorialisation. Across cases, victims are often excluded from commemoration planning. The role the authorities reserve for them is one of bearing witness – as their authentic experiences support security, prevention and non-repetition promises and, in some cases, legal and political actions. As such, their experiences are appropriated by the collective leaving their memorial needs unattended. A meaningful monument in victims’ view has the capacity to communicate their experiences while considering their dignity and well-being.

Enhancing citizens participation in memorialisation efforts

A successful memorialisation strategy is not only time-sensitive and respectful of victims’ memorial needs, but also mindful of the impact it seeks to achieve.

Due to the nature of terrorism, the society itself is seen as a victim of violence; a memory maker, through use of spontaneous memorialisation; but also, a memory consumer. However, citizens – intended users of state-led memorialisation efforts – often do not engage with such initiatives in the intended way. Public commemorations report low numbers in terms of citizens participation. In some instances, monuments fail to communicate with local communities as they e.g., lack authenticity or visibility in public space. At Rambla in Barcelona, even for the intended visitor, it is very hard to locate the monument made in memory of the 2017 attacks. In Brussels, the memorial to all victims of all terror attacks is created far away from the authentic site of attacks. Lack of citizen participation both in consultative process about permanent monuments and in commemorative efforts, weakens the potential of memorialisation strategy. In Norway, where such consultations were held early on, citizens, victims and survivors rejected the first memorial project that aimed at cutting Utoya island in half.  Monuments and memorials can have wider reach, more impact and visibility if they are brought in communication with its intended user – the society itself.

Reconciling private and public
dimension of remembrance

One of the most important challenges for policy makers is to create memorialisation strategies that reconcile both private and public dimension of remembrance.

Private memorials remain the main tool for mourning and remembrance for the victims, survivors, and their families. For instance, on the island of Utøya, such a memorial has been made by those who were directly affected by the violence. Through consultation about and work on the memorial itself, the victims and survivors conceived a monument as a place of reflection, grief, and memory of those who directly suffered its consequences. This initiative contrasts with memorial purposes of the national memorial, currently under construction just across the island. The National memorial of the 22 July attacks will reflect on broader understanding of the attacks’ consequences for Norwegian society.

Citizens and victims/survivors engage with terrorist attacks’ sites actively throughout the year, and not only around anniversaries. Such places have the capacity to communicate beyond victimhood and should be regarded not only as places of memory but as a space to contest the imagery of violence and promote democratic values. State led, the 22 July Sentret, is an important example of good practice. It is a learning center that works with the mediation of memory and knowledge about the terror attacks in Oslo and on Utøya. Situated in the governmental quarter where the first attacks happened, the center’s educational programme invites ordinary citizens, tourists, students and teachers into the dialogue about the 22nd of July. The main contribution of the Centre is in encouraging active participation in the negotiation of the attack’s significance both at present, and in the future.

As cities and states affected by terrorist violence have often dealt with memorialisation in an ad-hoc manner without clear policy guidance, identifying their practices is vital towards the development of future policy frameworks that can effectively address societal and victims’ needs. This project explored the methods and objectives of such policy guidance, generating the data necessary for identification of best practices through the assessment of memorialisation policies and practices on (trans)national level.

This research has a clear policy impact that can support management of the long-term consequences of a terrorist attack more efficiently. As such, it is highly relevant to the needs of the victims of terrorism and their families, decision makers and the general public. To effectively gauge the ways in which the victims can be memorialised, this project assessed current practices, needs and expectations of key actors, and provided a detailed account of the post-terror memorialisation process in the EU (see Policy Brief).