ABSTRACT
Chapters 3 and 4 foreground the issues of memory, commemoration and heritage, and should be read as a pair. By drawing on the rich and still growing interdisciplinary literature on memory and critical heritage studies, these chapters explore memory from a variety of perspectives: collective and social memory as well as individual memory; sites of memory and commemorative objects; along with a range of signs, symbols, icons and practices that were and are constitutive of memory and intangible heritage. Critical heritage studies reject the conventional view that heritage is constituted by the inherent value of objects and practices; rather, they view heritage as the product of judgements made not just by elites but also the public about what is valuable from the past. They also focus on the variety of ways in which people use the past. For heuristic purposes, it is argued that there were two main axes of tension and conflict in Chartist memory – one external facing, as Chartists confronted and challenged the ‘official’ histories and social memories of the dominant culture they countered with their own memories and traditions – the other internal, as multiplicities of memories jostled and competed for attention within the movement. Chapter 3 argues that Chartist encounters with the recent radical past might be better understood as exercises in social (or collective) memory rather constructing a ‘people’s history’ (as argued by previous historians) or ‘heritage from below’. Chapter 4 also investigates whether there was an equivalent to what has been termed an ‘authorised heritage discourse’ within Chartism, a concept developed mainly in relation to states and authorities, but one which potentially has relevance for political and social movements. This is because it foregrounds explicitly the notion of power and authority, in this case the Chartist leadership – who decides what constitutes the radical tradition, the composition of the pantheon, and potentially in ways that exclude the Chartist rank and file from this decision-making process by imposing on them a heritage canon. Chapter 4 examines how Chartist leaders as well as followers harnessed radical heroes, and shows how both groups invoked radical heroes to the extent that something approaching shared custody existed between leaders and followers, though this was not always an amicable partnership. Thus, in comparison to the invention of tradition of tradition by states, especially when it comes to symbols, the Chartist project was invariably constructed rather than imposed, to adopt Pierre Nora’s distinction. Far from being conservative and nostalgic – a charge often levelled at heritage, commemoration and the invention of tradition – the Chartists could draw strength and inspiration from historic figures, and in times of division or crisis they could unite around their founding fathers. As scholars of social movements have shown, origin stories, the trope of the founding fathers and indeed ‘exciting stories’ more generally all perform important roles in defining and mobilising popular movements.
