A look into the contemporary growth of modern pilgrimage at the French pilgrimage site Oradour-sur-Glane. The space, tainted by mass murder and atrocity of WWII, transformed from a site of death and into a sanctified martyred village through the preservation and commemoration of the ruins. Once a symbol of national unity and remembrance, Oradour today faces a loss of significance as modern views of tragedy and travel constantly change. Can the power of Oradour as a site of healing and reflection overcome the adversities of natural and cultural erosion?
A study of the contemporary growth of pilgrimage, coupled with fluctuating cultural trends, presents a new phenomenon distinct to the global desensitization of our generation. Overexposure to violence and horrific events influences the worldwide perceptions of various pilgrimage sites significant to human history. This relationship results in an almost “too familiar” approach to remembrance as a spectatorship. Dark fascinations lure modern viewers to sanctified places historically rich with human suffering and cruelty.[1] Consequently, motivational and emotional ties to a site and its narrative must continually evolve to keep pace with the relatively new pervasive notion of “dark tourism.”[2] Even still, as trips of healing and education continue alongside the new tourism trends, pilgrimage to such sites remains relevant within modern society. Inherently, blurred distinctions between pilgrimage and tourism lead to contestation surrounding the memory and sacredness of a site in question.[3] The collective multivocal interpretations of past and present create mosaics, blending together ever-distancing narratives within these “shadowed lands.”[4][5]
World War II’s lasting physical manifestations and related atrocities stand as appropriate models that exhibit the complex transformation of sacredness turned spectatorship. Memory of the massacred innocence remains rooted in the modern human consciousness existing as a fragile balance between a continued identification with original emotions and the current motives legitimizing the sanctification. The martyred French village of Oradour-sur-Glane attracts both pilgrims and tourists as a shadowed land, forever associated with the deed of its past, deriving its purpose from slaughter and brutality, yet sustained for education and redemption. Oradour’s continued existence illuminates the complexity of a limitation and sustentation reciprocal relationship between commemoration and exploitation within a sacred space. The preserved remains of Oradour flourish today as a hub of social human history, however, not long ago the site epitomized the ultimate French suffering and stood as a national mark on the country. The innate fickleness of shifting identities and interpretations of selective narratives reflect on how a site of such national importance, like Oradour, transforms into a decontextualized global interest of the past. Contrast and comparison with original and present social stake in the ruins of Oradour speaks to the future of the site and offers a view on the diminishing relevancy of the events in the sacred, political and national spheres of human memory.[6]
The Massacre of Oradour-sur-Glane
Historically, revolutionary social change goes hand-in-hand with death and casualties. Highlights of the past commonly express a unifying theme of innocent suffering alongside communal transformation. In extreme cases, the associated atrocities of an event taint a place and mark the landscape with death.[7] The history of World War II teems with such acts of unimaginable human evil as accounts of Nazi brutality cover textbooks throughout academia. The passed down narrative of Oradour-sur-Glane intentionally pulls on the heartstrings as a mass murder of complete innocence manifested within the preserved ruins of the landscape.
On June 10th, 1944, SS Nazi soldiers invaded the peace of the small French town Oradour-sur-Glane.[8] Atrocious accusations of resistance and taking up arms against Germany blind sighted the terrified group of ordinary people. The village men, women and children received neither mercy nor answers from the invaders as families were ripped apart, leaving the townspeople alone, afraid and deprived of any hope. At the signal, panicked groups of men faced rounds of bullets within their own family barns until only death filled the once familiar space. Nearby, Nazi soldiers locked all the women and children in the village church and set it afire. As Oradour burned, reckless brutality stole six hundred and forty-two lives on June 10th without so much as a word to why. Blood, tears and death seeped so deeply into the land that the slaughter of innocence at Oradour condemned the site.
At a moment of national distress, the surrounding French community mourned the collective loss with a merging of nationalism and faith.[9] Grappling with the concept of the event as an act of God led the people of France to believe in the need for a unifying element to overcome the grief of Oradour. Despite the stain on the land, surrounding groups found a sense of self in the atrocity that brought individuals together as one community sharing an identity based on civic affiliation and faith. The unpredictable wartime atmosphere amplified the strong sense of self-identity transcended from the horrific remains of a smoking ruin.[10] As a result, within only days of the massacre, Oradour-sur-Glane no longer represented a site of singular violence, but a tragedy for all of France. Adoption of this collective narrative came with consequences as the French lost any opportunity to avoid recognizing the site for its associated demons. Instead, the community embraced the tragedy, celebrating a need to remember, and transformed the site of death into a symbol of sacrifice and reflection. The people of France restored the shattered life of Oradour by establishing the site as a sacred space through preservation and memory.
The communal call for commemoration prioritized the order of presentation at Oradour to reflect the collective French memory. Oradour was to be preserved in its state of ruin as a reminder of the crime against the French using emotional symbolism. Display of items such as charred church bells and bullet-riddled baby carriages enhanced the victimized image of Oradour as the ideal French village molested, unprovoked, by Nazi barbarism.[11] Acknowledgement of to nationalistic growth within the ruins increased interest and involvement from indirectly connected groups as “maintaining heritages sites is closely related to cultural identity and this acts as a mechanism for constructing shared meanings and organizing group action.”[12] Oradour rapidly ascended to the official status of a sacred site within only a few short months following the massacre. Differing motives behind the preservation accompanied the expansion of public affiliation as multiple different organizations focused on separate causes of Oradour. From aiding survivors to publicizing the massacre, the groups successfully perpetuated the collective memory of the ruins as a representation of French unity through suffering.[13] Attention on the image of Oradour as a place of innocence reveals the social urgency to condemn the Nazis and bear witness to the brutality of the German occupation. Oradour represented an unmediated narrative of exactly this position of French helplessness.[14] Together, the embraced, widespread recognition of Oradour as a sacred site of national identity gave the French government no choice but to officially involve itself in the promotion and preservation of the ruins.[15]
Political Influence and Exploitation
The projected social image of Oradour presented an opportunity for the French government to get a foot up in the war. At the political level, identification of Oradour as a site of Nazi barbarism reached international shores, specifically the western Allies.[16] With American President Roosevelt undecided on the governmental claims of the liberated Provisional French Republic, French President de Gaulle emphasized his role as a leader and fellow ally by publically commemorating Oradour-sur-Glane in 1945. De Gaulle’s recognition of Oradour and perseverant message of national unity, despite his political motives, resulted in a mass surge of support from his fellow Frenchmen. President de Gaulle legitimized the national identity established within Oradour when he addressed the survivors with, “Oradour is a symbol of what happened to the country itself. In order to mend, and to maintain memory, it is necessary to remain together, as we are in this moment. A place like this remains something shared by all. Never again; a similar thing must never happen anywhere in France.”[17] In a few short sentences, President de Gaulle tied the government to Oradour through nationalism and shared faith and consequently instituted the image a martyred village and people.
Simultaneously, the unstable internal political atmosphere of France at the time surrounding the massacre further implemented governmental interference on the shaping of Oradour as a public symbol. Guilt and shame arose from the hazy participation of the French people in the violence of the Nazi occupation from both passive and resistant sides. In the months after the massacre, both political sides spew propaganda through mass media sources with accusations of the other group’s involvement. The official government established “martyrdom” of Oradour eased the tensions between political parties by completely removing the political presence through decontextualization.[18] Rather than facing national humiliation of defeat and French passivity, the Government detached the events of Oradour from the historical context and replaced the anxiety over French involvement with the message that everyone was at risk.[19] The results legitimized the existing sacredness of the site by reinforcing the commemorative memory of the massacre on a personal level rather than a political event tired to war.[20] Governmental exploitation of Oradour’s sacredness for a greater political advantage converted the image of the massacre from a French national symbol to a globally recognized event.
Complementary participation between President de Gaulle and the Minister of Interior successfully ascertained “Oradour’s place on the official commemorative landscape of the Second World War.”[21] In April of 1945, the ruins of Oradour were classified as a national French historic site and the church a national historic monument. This ultimate transformation completed the martyrdom of Oradour as a sacred cause of the national whose people died for the sake of the country.[22] The official use of the government imposed term “martyr” throughout national and global communications finalized the commemorative and selective historical French narrative of Oradour and the atrocity witnessed there as sacred space of French unity through suffering.
Pilgrimage and Spirituality of Oradour
As a direct result of the community established national identity, legitimized by governmental influences, Oradour opened to pilgrimage as a “shrine in secular cult of memory.”[23] The projected image of martyrdom attracted those without a direct, personal experience of Oradour who wished to participate in the memorialization as a fellow Frenchman. The government termed pilgrimage to the martyred village using national and pious magnitudes. Thus, the notion of both nationalism and religious faith coexisting in the sacred site of French identity empowered the will of the people to restore faith in the greatness of their country once again.[24] To demonstrate the truth in the power of France, the government unanimously voted to enshrine the ruins in 1946 and by the 1950s the martyred ruins of Oradour became a nationally owned sacred space.
Labeling Oradour as a national pilgrimage site resulted in divisions of the memorial landscape. Places deemed significant for commemoration and mourning of the community loss included the physical ruins, the cemetery and the new town of Oradour.[25] With the separation of sacred space came a social hierarchal consequence as visitors of different motivations derived varying meaning from each of these sites. Over time these social distinctions became more topographically clear as, in general, families came to mourn the personal loss of relatives and friends at the local cemetery while outsiders commemorated and reflected on the past events within the village ruins. The new town of Oradour represented a mix of both coping with loss and memorialization. Survivors of the massacre and family of the deceased occupied the new town located just a few meters north of the ruins. A community identity quickly established as life focused around overcoming grief together. However, like the other sites of Oradour, the new town normalized as time passed and the burdened memory of Oradour lost a slight emotional edge with the incoming of new generations. [26]
Oradour’s overwhelming national significance as a sacred site strengthened through the continued practice of commemorating the collective memory through national and heritage pilgrimage. The ruins of Oradour spoke for themselves invoking a universal pain and love for the martyred village and the country of France among pilgrims. The act of memory pilgrimage called together the countrymen as a united, faithful French community giving life and meaning the to undying remains of Oradour.[27]
The Time Relation and Search for Authenticity
With the passing of time, the preservation of the ruins of Oradour in a ruined state has proved challenging. Sadly, while natural erosion set in, the integrity of the archaeological heritage of Oradour slipped into a paradoxical time vortex of authenticity.[28] As time and weather take their toll on the materialism of Oradour, the degradation of the site calls into question the relationship between the sanctifying events of Oradour and the memorial landscape.[29] In the attempt to freeze time, the French bound the site of Oradour to the harsh effects of decay in aspects of both physicality and the collective memory.
Overemphasis of Oradour’s symbolism by the original French government and supporting groups to counterpart the collective memory tampers with the site’s “eternal and unchanging” significance.[30] Restorations to Oradour increase each year in order to accommodate the commemorative needs of the present community.[31] As a site of a transfixed past, the importance and purpose of Oradour derives its meaning from the physical presentation of objects and, consequently, the integrity of the site relies on the sustained interpretations of authenticity. The method deployed in preserving the authenticity of the site, reconstruction, further distorts history and the already selective memory of Oradour. Thus, the very act of preserving the sacred tenure of Oradour lends a hand in the undermining of the emotional impact originally invested in the site.
A look into this give and take relationship of preservation and decontextualization shows that “we cannot keep separate from us the remains of the past by casting them into a past that is no more, since these remains only exist in the temporal relations that they maintain with our own present.”[32] We add to and clean up the ruins of Oradour in a vain attempt to hold onto the past, but in reality, these constant efforts inhibit the natural evolution of the landscape. An “artificial state of the past” remains as physical changes replace the significance of Oradour’s original sacrifice with a new meaning that is not of Oradour’s history, but of our own modern present and future.[33] The discrepancy between the remains of Oradour and their associated history grows with each transformation of space. Exposure to time softened Oradour’s social significance as a site that once conjured intense emotions of grief and nationalism to now a distanced and almost romantic view of another world contradictory to the site’s original purpose.[34]
Similarly, the political exploitation and overextensions of Oradour as a national sacred site condemned the ruins to forever associate with the original government influenced collective memory. Consequently, the French governments participation in legitimizing Oradour for political advancement immediately after the massacre imposes new conflicts for the site as modern political interpretations and methods for determining sites of national significance constantly change.[35] On the national and global level, new states of international affairs slowly diminishes the presence and power of Oradour’s lost past in the reformation of the French collective memory.[36]
The Changing Narrative and Future of Oradour
Developmental changes associated with modern interpretations of history inherently cause contestation between groups of travellers searching for a connection to history. One group consists of those who visit Oradour seeking an answer to a connection with the site’s original memory. The second group results from modern commercialism and shift towards tourism, as groups travel to Oradour with motives correlated with the site’s new significance. Past motives of the sanctification of Oradour created and set parameters surrounding the sacredness of the ruins. Preserving the site following regulations of the past during modern, present time inhibits Oradour’s original healing potential. Today, an examination of modern cultural trends reveals new approaches to travel experience and interacting with the past.[37] The present take on travel purposes juxtaposed to the social restriction of Oradour’s original collective memory, speeds the transformation of Oradour from a sacred space of the upmost national worth to a decontextualized global appreciation of past events. Categories of visitors with their associated travel motivations increasingly diverge as each attempts to find the value of authenticity in Oradour. Present cultural trends reports on a globally increasing detachment from the purpose behind sanctification of historically significant sites and shows that new modernized ways of experience Oradour will at some point overtake the past narrative. A new story of present interpretations of the historical atrocity will take the place of the old. Oradour will retain its place in the historical landscape of the future; however, modernization of memory and narratives will lose an essential sacredness of the site to the past.
Despite academic exposure to historical atrocities, such as the Holocaust, the educational value of such teachings loses urgency for current generations. The exponential rate of technological and modern advancements implements a profound social barrier to culture connection between the preset and the past.[38] Fundamental shifts in the tourism expand the concept to include the social consumption places of death and disaster. The increasing popular support behind atrocity tourism begins to overshadow pilgrimages of reflection and mourning once exclusively associated to historically educational sites like Oradour.[39] In response to cultural evolution, the well-embedded events carnage and human suffering in society’s consciousness causes the projected slaughter of innocence at Oradour to transcend the context of its past to provide a different meaning and social sustenance for dark exploration within the new bounds of modern tourism. As tourists attempt to be a part of the past, interacting with history, methods of experiencing authenticity come to be in forms of “dark tourism.” Emotional curiosity surrounding tragedy arises from an incapable ability of present generations to comprehend the reality and “closeness” of the past.[40] Shadowed land, such as Oradour, represents an otherworldly place where speculation of the worst faults of human character becomes socially acceptable.
Dark tourism, atrocity tourism and Holocaust tourism share a common theme: a “fatal attraction” manifested in the consumption of violence and disaster.[41] Modern political, economical and sociological changes influences the cultural dark fascination with the human character and develop new socially acceptable means of expressing this curiosity through tourism.[42] Marketing human cruelty and trauma acknowledges an uncomfortable appreciation of tragedy within our generation.[43] The odd familiarity with sites of protrusive suffering may derive from the original decontextualized motivations of sanctification of sites of atrocity. The historical contestation and preservation surrounding established Holocaust sites opens the door to dark tourism. This and the historical acknowledgement of places marked by an associated human evil allow reinterpretation of the site’s significance in the context of modern values. Use of the narrative form to vocalize Oradour’s associated violence captured the emotional charge immediately after the massacre. However, this format of presentation only limits the future of Oradour by distorting concepts of reality surrounding the site.[44]
Historical distortions and modern familiarity undermines the original intended educational value embedded within sanctification of sites marked by atrocity. Consequently, the increased social, political and national interpretations of the past and present and deviations from the common narrative expand already existing contestation and questions of authenticity of Oradour. The old and new narratives are still alive at Oradour and allow the visitor to create his or her own interpretation. As social differences surrounding sites like Oradour, spectacles of consumer tourism arise from the memories of once sacred spaces.[45] The complex relationship of memorization and exploitation of space and memory persists as the line between pilgrimage and tourism blurs with complexity for future generations.
Today, Oradour exists as a shadowed land, unable to remove its current social relevancy from the stain of past associations of violence and tragedy. Despite the increase in dark tourism worldwide, pilgrimage to Oradour remains relevant. The reciprocal relationship between the past narrative and modern tourism depends on a community to nurture the image of Oradour as a martyred place. Otherwise, the site becomes just a place of death with no value to those curious of the dark human nature. The forces of Oradour’s past historical significance and present cultural relevancy sustain one another through limitation in the complex intersection of sacredness and spectatorship. The past, present and future narratives depend on this relationship keeping Oradour and it’s associated past a spot of the collective memory of human history.
[1] G.J. Ashworth, “Tourism and Heritage Atrocity: Managing the Heritage of South African apartheid for entertainment,” In Tourism Seeks New Horizons 1-16, NL: University of Groningen, 2004, 1-2, hereafter cited Ashworth, “Tourism”
[2] Kenneth E. Foote, Shadowed Ground: America’s Landscapes of Violence and Tragedy (Austin, University of Texas Press, 1997), 7, hereafter cited Foote.
[3] Sarah B. Farmer, Martyred Village: Commemorating the 1944 Massacre at Oradour-sur-Glane (Berkley: California University Press, 1999), 113, hereafter cited Farmer, Martyred.
[4] Kenneth E. Foote, Shadowed Ground, 5-7
[5] Foote, Shadowed Ground, 1-5
[6] Farmer, Martyred, 3-11
[7] Foote, Shadowed Ground, 26
[8] Farmer, Martyred, 20-28, following information of paragraph is from same section
[9] Sarah B. Farmer, “Oradour-sur-Glane: Memory in a Preserved Landscape,” Historical Studies 19 (March 2012): 28, hereafter cited Farmer, “Oradour”
[10] Foote, Shadowed Ground, 8-15
[11] Farmer, Martyred, 66-72
[12] Jeffrey S. Podoshen and James M. Hunt, “Equity restoration, the Holocaust and tourism of sacred sites,” Tourism Management 32 (January 2011): 1334, hereafter cited Podoshen, “Equity Restoration”
[13] Farmer, “Oradour,” 32-33
[14] Farmer, Martyred 71
[15] Farmer, Martyred, 58-59
[16] Farmer, Martyred, 80
[17] Farmer, Martyred, 83
[18] Farmer “Oradour, 32
[19] Farmer, Martyred, 58
[20] Farmer, “Oradour,” 32-33
[21] Farmer, Martyred, 89
[22] Farmer, Martyred, 93
[23] Farmer, Martyred, 102
[24] Farmer, Martyred, 91-98
[25] Farmer, Martyred, 100-102
[26] Farmer, “Oradour,” 36-40
[27] Podoshen, “Equity Restoration” 1333
[28] Oliver Laurent, “The Archaeology of the Contemporary Past,” In Archaeologies of the Contemporary Past, edited by Victor Buchli and Gavin Lucas, 175-188. New York: Routledge, 2011, 183, hereafter cited Laurent, “Archaeology”
[29] Farmer, “Oradour,” 42-44
[30] Podoshen, “Equity Restoration.” 195
[31] Foote, Shadowed Land,
[32] Laurent, “Archaeology,” 184
[33] Laurent, “Archaeology” 184
[34] Farmer, “Oradour” 43
[35] Lennon, Dark Tourism, 31
[36] Farmer, “Oradour,” 42
[37] Ashworth, “Tourism,” 1-5, all the following information is from the same section
[38] Ashworth, “Tourism, ” 1-2
[39] Lennon, Dark Tourism, 3
[40] Lennon, Dark Tourism, 29-30
[41] Ashworth, “Tourism,” 1-2
[42] Lennon, Dark Tourism, 3-11
[43] Ashworth, “Tourism,” 1, 5-6
[44] Lennon, Dark Tourism, 30
[45] Ashworth, “Tourism, ”2
Leave a comment