The Icelandic Canadian - 01.11.2006, Blaðsíða 27

Vol. 60 #3
THE ICELANDIC CANADIAN
I 13
stone. Written in Icelandic, Gudrun
Goodman’s head stone reads: “Born 1 Oct.
1853; died 24 March 1922. In memory of
Gudrun Goodman. She was a midwife.
She delivered 336 children and she never
lost a mother. Her memory be blessed.”8
This simple tribute to Gudrun Goodman
acknowledges her contribution to the
Icelandic community and remains a lasting
memory. Tombstones, however, are not
only monuments to individuals, but they
are also repositories of cultural practices.
Goodman’s grave is marked by her cultur-
al identity as evidenced not only by the
Icelandic inscription but the iconogra-
phy —on top of the tomb stone is an open
book—a symbol of literacy—a most cher-
ished value, as I have learned, among
Icelandic settlers.
The Icelandic cemetery and Gudrun
Goodman’s tombstone are sites of material
culture that also serve as an emblem for the
links between collective memory and indi-
vidual biography, between the local experi-
ence and national formations, between
commemoration and recall. These themes
emerged during this research, and demand-
ed that I engage with the burgeoning liter-
ature on memory and history.9 My think-
ing on this topic began with Pierre Nora’s
now classical work, Les Lieux de
Memoire10 (Places of Memory). Nora
argues that “there are lieux de memoire,
sites of memory, because there are no
longer milieux de memoire, real environ-
ments of memory.”11 Through the twin
processes of the globalization of cultures
and the deritualization of traditional cul-
tures, memory—‘the remnants of experi-
ence’—have been lost and instead has been
replaced by commemorative practices
(including the establishment of archives,
libraries, dictionaries, museums, celebra-
tions, and monuments).
Ironically, Nora’s recovery project
itself could be considered an act of com-
memoration as he seeks to preserve ‘real’
memory, thus blurring the lines between
memory and history. Providing a more
nuanced view of commemorative practices,
often cited John Bodnar argues that “pub-
lic memory represents the intersection of
vernacular and official cultural expres-
sions.”12 Vernacular culture is grounded
in the first-hand experiences of ordinary
people who wish to commemorate local
and autobiographical events (such as the
pioneers or dead soldiers). In contrast,
official culture represents an idealized
image of the nation cultivated by “cultural
leaders and authorities at all levels of soci-
ety.” Although noting that ordinary peo-
ple are not opposed necessarily to defend-
ing the symbol of the nation, Bodnar’s
methodology depends upon a rigid distinc-
tion between vernacular and official cul-
tures because, in his view, they represent
competing interpretations of reality.13
Other scholars, however, argue for a more
fluid approach.14 As Coates and Morgan
observed, the relationship between these
interests can be “dialectical even dialogi-
cal.”13
Women’s role as creators of historical
memory, a point overlooked by Nora,
dates back to the nineteenth century in
English Canada,16 Britain,17 and Europe.18
A few women were able to make their liv-
ing as writers of history, particularly
biographies of famous women, or historical
fiction but the majority were engaged in
the preservation of their oral and material
heritage—an activity that was pejoratively
dubbed as ‘amateur’ by professionalizing
historians. These preservationist practices
however did not often translate into a cele-
bration of women’s contributions in public
space. Instead monuments of famous male
military and political figures dot the urban
landscape—attesting to male power,
accomplishment and heroism while images
of women are notably absent. When they
are present, women are most often repre-
sented as allegories and archetypes—myth-
ical symbols which bear no relationship to
the lives of real women. Only occasional-
ly are monuments of historical women
erected (for example, Madeleine de
Vercheres, Laura Secord, and Queens
Victoria and Elizabeth 11) after they have
entered the male spheres of politics and the
military as symbols of political power or
saviors of the nation.19
There is no official monument cele-
brating the accomplishments of Gudrun
Goodman, and yet her family and commu-