Collective Representations, Divided Memory and Patterns of Paradox: Mining and Shipbuilding [1]

This paper seeks to examine the different relationship of two industries to theirpotential for representation and celebration in collective memory. Looking atcase studies of mining and shipbuilding in the shared location of Wearside thepaper compares and contrasts features of the two industries in relation to thedivergent outcomes of the traces of their collective memory in this place. Usingvisual representations the paper makes the case that the mining industry hasexperienced a successful recovery of memory. This is contrasted to the paucityof visual representation in relation to shipbuilding.The reasons for the contrast in the viability of collective memory are examined.Material, cultural and aesthetic issues are addressed. Contrasts are drawnbetween divisions of labour in the two industries and the ways in which theseimpact upon community and trade union organisation which further relate to thecontrast between industrial and occupational identity. Differences in the legacyof the physical occupational communities of the two industries are illustrated.There is also an examination of the aesthetic forms of representation in whichmining is seen as characterised by the aesthetics of labour, whereasshipbuilding is represented more through the aesthetics of product. The way inwhich the industries were closed also becomes important to understand thevariation in the differences of the potential of collective memory. All of thesestrands are brought together to conclude that in relation to the potential forcollective memory, mining can be seen to have gone through a process of‘mourning’ whereas melancholia seems to more adequately represent the situationwith respect to shipbuilding. In illustrating these cases the paper is arguingfor a more sophisticated understanding of the process of deindustrialisation andthe potential for the recovery of collective memory.