King Returns to Washington by Jefferson Walker (review)

With King Returns to Washington, Jefferson Walker brings new energy and a fresh perspective to both the disciplinary study of the rhetoric of public memory and the broader study of the legacy of the civil rights era. King Returns to Washington offers a compact yet detailed account of the 27-year-long process from inception to dedication of the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial in Washington, D.C. in 2011. The book is composed of five chapters, including an introductory chapter providing a useful overview of current scholarship on memory studies with a particular focus on scholarship on memorials; three content chapters focusing on the production, hermeneutics, and politics of memory; and a conclusion that indicates directions for future research.

The purpose of the book is twofold: Walker seeks to contribute to our understanding of public memory scholarship in general and to revisit King’s “mythic construction” (5) by creating a more complex understanding of King’s role in the larger civil rights movement. Walker presents the attempt to officially memorialize King as a particularly fruitful case study insofar as our cultural memory highlights only a small and sanitized part of King’s cultural and political work. Walker frames King Returns to Washington in scholarship that distinguishes between history and memory. He explains, “Whereas historical accounts seek objectivity and accuracy, memories are partial and partisan” (6). At the “core of memory studies,” Walker argues, lies “the understanding that commemorative artifacts are activated by and are responsive to contemporary issues” (6). In King’s case, Walker contends, scholarship focuses on the unifying values of peace and justice that contribute to King being remembered as a relatively uncontroversial figure rather than as an “evolving, embattled, and confrontational” protagonist in the civil rights movement (5).

In chapter 2, Walker thematizes the production of remembrance and offers a thick description of the events surrounding the nearly three-decade-long development of the King Memorial. Reviewing the public debates over the memorial’s location, design, choice of artist commissioned with the design, and controversial fundraising efforts, Walker offers an illuminating and often surprising account of the multitude of considerations and voices that shaped this project. With these multiple competing interests involved in its production, the King Memorial serves as an illustrative example of the contentious nature of the production of sites designated for public remembrance. For instance, Walker recounts the racially charged debate over commissioning a Chinese sculptor mostly known for his designs of Communist leaders with the design for the memorial of the African American civil rights activist. Similarly passionate controversies ensued when the foundation tasked with securing funds for the project accepted financial support from large corporations whose missions were perceived to be at odds with King’s values and when the meaning of King’s words were abridged to fit on the memorial. With such incommensurable differences, Walker highlights the conflictual and interested process of memorial making that is freighted with compromises and stumbling blocks and that often fluctuates between ideological commitments to uphold the values and accuracy of the person or event to be remembered and the constraints posed by practical considerations.

Walker’s own critical interpretation of the memorial is the subject of chapter 3. His approach offers a “composite reading of the site’s textual composition and visual design” and draws on supplementary materials from the National Park Service to shed light on which aspects of King’s legacy are remembered and which are bracketed (9). The analysis is built on the author’s three key assumptions from scholarship about memorial sites, namely that “(1) memorials are purposeful, partisan, and partial; (2) memorials are parts of larger physical and cognitive landscapes; and (3) memorials respond to present circumstances by educating and building identity” (36). Approaching the memorial from a fragment analysis framework, Walker’s rhetorical critique of the memorial site reminds us that “certain fragments are privileged over others” and that any interpretation will thus be necessarily partial and incomplete (53). As a case in point...