Arguing Monuments and Material Rhetoric

The concept of "materiality" and how physical objects argue is becoming popular in rhetorical criticism. Scholars are beginning to theorize that buildings, cities, monuments, and other physical objects can argue, influence people, and tell stories -- just like words. The history of "the material turn" is quiet expansive (as I've discovered while writing my dissertation about it), but I will summarize some key points before discussing examples.

Traditional rhetorical criticism focused on the speeches of great orators and analyzed the word choices and potential effects. Scholars slowly began to incorporate other objects of study like groups of speakers, genres of speeches, and non-elite speakers. These variations still focused on the spoken and written word, however. Larger changes emerged when scholars began looking at how physical spaces constrain or offer opportunities in the way that speeches invite or construct possibilities for audiences. Moving through a space that has physical obstacles is similar to spoken commands or laws that restrict movement. Physical spaces and objects can themselves be symbols (like words) that have embedded meaning, affect, and significance. Materiality invites audience participation and makes arguments.

The first example of arguing monuments is the Portrait Monument at the US Capitol. The marble monument shows three elegant busts of prominent women in the women's suffrage movement: Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, and Lucretia Mott. There is room for a fourth bust in a lump of un-carved stone in the rear of the monument.

Picture retrieved from Architect of the Capitol

This monument makes a clear argument that the work of women's rights is unfinished. There may have been great women in the past who deserve to be honored, but there is still the need for activism, activists, and progress. Furthermore, viewers of the monument are invited to honor the memories of these three great women by continuing on their work. Their memories do not invoke a sense of completeness or finality; their faces encourage the audience to ask, "what more can be done?" Some people have thought that the unfinished section is meant to be completed when the US elects the first female President. This, however, goes against the intention of the artist, Adelaide Johnson, to show the perpetually unsolved state of gender equality.

Another example is the Atheism bench. This monument is the first public monument to atheism, or a lack of belief in divinity. The American Atheists lost a court case to have a monument to the Ten Commandments removed from a Florida Courthouse. Instead of removing the monument, the court offered them the opportunity to build their own monument. The monument is a bench so as to be a functional piece of public display. It is covered in quotations that specifically mention religion and the American political and legal systems.

Picture retrieved from Time Magazine

The Atheism bench claims space for non-belief outside of a courtroom that, like Lady Liberty, should be blind to concerns of religion. The bench argues that religious belief should not be a factor in the courts. The bench also argues that public space should be free and open space where no ideas should dominate and none should be excluded. The bench also includes, in writing "consequences of breaking the Ten Commandments" as a direct verbal argument against the Ten Commandments monument displayed on the other end of the courthouse.

These are just two examples of how physical spaces can produce arguments. Oftentimes, memorials are coupled with verbal statements, like the Atheism bench, but it is important for scholars to note that images, monuments, and material things can produce independent, standalone arguments.

The Jewel House

In “Visual Methodologies”, Rose (2007) describes two types of discourse analysis; the second, 

being the topic of discussion for today’s blog post, is “concerned with [materials’] production by, 
and their reiteration of, particular institutions and their practices, and their production of particular 
human subjects” (pg. 172). Using this second type of discourse analysis that focuses on the institution 
that produces material and how the architecture and technologies of that institution affect participation 
and viewing, we will analyze the Tower of London’s crown jewels exhibit. This exhibit is structured in a 

unique way as far as museums go, which act to strictly enforce the flow and behavior of the visitors.

Architecturally, the floor plans of the crown jewel exhibit are paths from one room to the next, as in 

many museums, but the striking difference is the direction of traffic is predetermined. There is only one 

way to walk through the exhibit as each room leads to another in a steady line of people, roped off from 

exploring the room in anything but the selected route. The line outside to get into the exhibit is a ruse, 
as the line never dies, but instead maintains intact throughout the tour. 

There is no way to double-back or move outside of this line, because then the visitor will have 

broken the chain and will be seen as cutting ahead. In the same vein, taking too long in one particular 
spot (to examine the coat of arms in the “Hall of Monarchs” room, for example, that one passes 

through on the way to main exhibit) will cause a delay for everyone behind you to reach the crown 

jewels. In this sense, there is social pressure imposed by this lined formation that prevents people 

from examining any of the exhibits for too long or leaving the line to explore the room outside of the 

path. 

The only exception to this rule is in the video section where a large screen shows a video and history 

of each of the crown jewels right before the viewing room. This large room contains a weaving back 

and forth through additional ropes, so during the longer journey through the room, the visitors can view 
the movie. Traveling through this path, though, takes little more than 5 minutes, and each segment of the 
video is approximately that long, so visitors wishing to continue watching can break the path from this room 
to the next by circling back to where they entered and wait to rejoin the line. This, again offers social 
resistance as inserting oneself back into a line that one has left causes tension between those wishing to 
move quickly to the crown jewel room and those who want to view the entire film. A similar set-up is 
available in the crown jewels room, as those who want to take another look at the jewels can circle back 
to the beginning of the room, re-enter the line, and travel through again.

From left to right: The Imperial State Crown, St. Edward's Crown, the Queen's Mother's Crown, The Royal Orb

In addition to the architecture that dissuades cutting through the predetermined path, there is additional 
technology and manpower that dissuades from misbehavior and rule-breaking. There are video cameras in 
each of the rooms leading up to and including the final room, with guards stationed at the entrance and exit 
of each room. It is well known that the exhibit is off-limits to cameras as is the church on the grounds, 
whereas all other buildings allow cameras. Although there is no signage to remind visitors, the presence of 
the guards and the video cameras ensure that no visitor uses a camera during the tour. This is an example of Foucault’s surveillance as “an efficient means of producing social order” (Rose, pg. 174), because without 
the knowledge that guards and technology is watching, there might be more temptation to break the rule and 
try to take pictures of the jewels.

Technology is also employed in the final room to encourage swift movement through the exhibit, literally. 
Upon entering the final room, the line continues onto a moving platform where visitors are then passed in 
front of the cases containing the crown jewels. Not only does this technology control the movement of the 
line by making it impossible to gape and pause at the jewels, but it also makes photo-taking extremely difficult. 
If a visitor desires to view the jewels more than just the once through, he or she can back track through a non-motorized path at the back of the room (away from the jewels and monitored by additional security) and 
re-enter the conveyor belt. This was the additional back-tracking technique I referenced earlier that comes 
with its own social pressures. The technology employed here in an example of institutional technology that 
controls the power and knowledge that visitors have to see and learn about the crown jewels.

As with many museums, the tour ends with the conveyor belt dropping visitors right off to the entrance of 
the gift shop, which must be traversed to leave the building. Considering that photos are not allowed, the gift 
shop capitalizes on this restriction by displaying full color postcards of the crown jewels at the gift shop 
entrance. This is another display of power over visitors as something that would be free for visitors (to have 
a photo of their visit) is now a profit for the exhibit at 40p a postcard. So, if someone were to buy a postcard 
of each of the crowns as mementos, that would be an extra 2 pound 40 that the museum makes per head 
just by controlling the technology usage within the exhibit.

To conclude, the discourse of the Tower of London crown jewels exhibit controls the power and knowledge 
that visitors have by employing rigid path markers, posted guards, video cameras, and conveyor belts. These influence visitor behavior in the exhibit (i.e. not straying from the marked paths, not taking photos, and keeping 
a brisk pace). The overall meaning of this discourse of fast-paced exhibit viewing is different from many 
other museums and gives off the impression that the history of these jewels and personal reflection about 
them is not as important and making sure as many people see them as quickly as possible. The visitor is nothing more then a viewer, not a consumer, listener, interpreter, and pushed through the system satisfied that he or 
she saw the crown jewels. The reasons for this are, of course, that this exhibit is very popular (over 2.5 million visitors a year says “The Official Website of the British Monarch”) and it would take hours as opposed to half 
an hours to walk through the exhibit if people were allowed to wander and take their time. This population and speed control ensures that visitors cannot complain of long wait times and no one is turned away from an 
important part of visiting the Tower of London due to visitors attempting to read every placard and ogle the 
jewels for extended periods of time. This leads to a less than welcoming atmosphere in the exhibit, though, 
and a less than normal museum experience for the sake of expediency.

Line to get into the Jewel House