New light; friendly soil: affective–discursive dimensions of Anzac Day commemorations in Aotearoa New Zealand

Abstract

This paper investigates affective–discursive dimensions of nation‐building via commemorations of nationhood within Aotearoa New Zealand to ask about how these assemblages construct feeling trajectories for citizen participants. We report auto‐ethnographic analyses of participation in specific Anzac Day war remembrance events that occurred in the capital city Wellington. Analyses point to the ways in which engagement in the choreographies of commemoration constructs varied emotion‐laden subject positions for participants and how these psycho‐social differences index and evoke contrasting memorial politics. We conclude that while the differences in affective ambience at different events may prompt citizens towards nationalistic or more conciliatory identity politics, the ceremonies create space for participants to feel and enact diverse affective practices.

Celebrating nationhood: Negotiating nationhood and history in Finland's centenary celebrations

“…As we will discuss below, hegemonic and alternative narratives coexist side by side and penetrate each other. Different modes of commemorating construct and mobilise varied emotion‐laden meanings and subject positions for social categories (McCreanor et al, 2018; Wetherell, 2013). Extracts demonstrating hegemonic ways of representing the war follow the narration identified in previous research (Kinnunen & Jokisipilä, 2012; Tepora, 2011), while the extracts of alternative narratives demonstrate how the hegemonic narration is complemented or questioned by emancipated and polemic representations.…”

“…The dialogic approach of social representations directs attention to the dynamics of the stability and change of social knowledge construction. Thus, our analysis brings forth the power struggle of meanings and the way in which affects and emotions are entangled with meaningmaking in commemorative and nation-building practices (McCreanor et al, 2018), for example, by employing narrative empathy (Liu & László, 2007) in commemorations. Our findings echo Hutchinson's (2005) view on nationalism as 'zones of conflicts' in the sense that cultural homogeneity does not seem to characterise contemporary Finnish national identity, but different versions of the past are told and multiple subject positions made available for the participants, such as a position of hardworking Finn or brave Finn in hegemonic narratives, and respectively, a position of emancipated women or fragile and traumatised soldiers in alternative narratives.…”

“…Scholars have recently addressed the importance of studying affects in commemorative rituals and nation‐building. For example, McCreanor and colleagues' (2018) study of Anzac Day commemorations in New Zealand shows how the feeling dimension is constructed and mobilised to the imperatives of national cohesion.…”

New Zealand’s ANZAC nurses: marketizing the great war for a 21st-century fit

“…The ANZAC effort is today remembered not only for the sacrifice paid to the motherland but ardently regarded as a symbol of the dawning of nationhood for Australia and New Zealand (McCreanor, et al , 2019; McGibbon, 2018). The recording and retelling of the Anzac story in history recounts the sacrifice of Australia and New Zealand’s young at the behest of British military hierarchy and what is regarded now as poor British strategic decisions during the Gallipoli conflict (Chasseaud and Doyle, 2015; Hart, 2011).…”

New geographies of commemoration

“…Since then, a vibrant body of work in geography and beyond focused on the experience of commemoration has emerged, with a growing strand addressing the affective and sensory aspects of official commemorative sites and events. This takes in studies of visits to museums or memorials (Waterton and Dittmer, 2014; Turner and Peters, 2015; Sumartojo and Graves, 2018; Drozdzewski, 2018a; Seal, 2011; McCreanor et al, 2018; Wetherell et al, 2019), the specific affective affordances of digital sensory technologies (Witcomb, 2013; Sumartojo and Graves, 2019; Sear, 2016), and the role of touch and materiality in communicating knowledge of the past (Zhang and Crang, 2016; Freeman et al, 2016). In their book on affective heritage practices, for example, Wetherell, Smith and Campbell (2018: 2) argue that ‘attention to emotion and affect allows us to deepen our understanding of how people develop attachments and commitments to the past, things, beliefs, places, traditions and institutions’.…”