Full Time PhD student at School of Planning and Geography, Cardiff University.
I love to travel and meet people all around the world. I like to play bass guitar and go out with friends.
I fluently speak English and I have a fair knowledge of French and Spanish.
There is a significant literature examining the issue on how social and cultural control is (re)produced within urban space in the field of human and geography, but this does not appear to be informed by semiotic insights. In response, I will address this limitation by grounding my research in semiotics and specifically addressing research communities in planning theory and human geography.
Since Monument and Myth by David Harvey (1979), many subsequent studies in cultural geography have focused on the symbolic power of monumental public space. Hence, many scholars have investigated the practices of conservation, marginalization and excision focusing on places where historical events of mass violence have taken place . Most of this research has specifically shown how monuments can represent a domain of struggle among competing ideological interests, opposing the official dominant narratives with the more or less unexpected interpretations of other subjects living the city. Within this debate, there is agreement on the fact that material history is “silent, but not mute” , mainly speaking the languages of dominant groups (Hay, Huges & Tutton, 2004). Monuments are “media of power” setting dominant socio-spatial relations in stone and representing histories selectively, focusing on specific events, while marginalising and obliterating discomfortable ones. Therefore, they are able to change the understanding of the past, (re)writing and (re)shaping collective memory.
But how material history “speaks”? How monuments become mechanisms of social and cultural control able to ideologically charge places?