To refer to this article use this url: http://www.quotidian.nl/vol01/nr01/a02
Closure
In the above sections I have delineated the period between the murder and the funeral as a period of liminality, a period in which the polity sought to heal the fissure, through a series of redressive measures and performances. The performances, both organised and unorganised, allowed Dutch society to present itself to itself, which made this liminal phase also essentially reflexive (cf. Turner 1982, 75). The opinions, criticism and advice articulated in the rituals provided society, as it were, with feedback on its current state. For the sake of clarity, ‘closure’ means the closure of a crisis phase as such. It did not mean an end to the hostile atmosphere that surrounded the issues of immigration and Islam, which was to remain hardened for the years to come.
In addition to the noise wake and the memorial (a material articulation of both crisis and redress), the redressive performances after Van Gogh’s murder also included two other major rituals that are discussed below. In both instances, the organising parties attempted to redress the crisis by addressing the topics of contestation that concerned them specifically. Their efforts may also be interpreted as attempts to render the crisis as meaningful by converting certain values into the system (see Turner 1982, 75-76).
- On Wednesday November 3, various neighbourhood organisations organised a march from the local Al-Kabir mosque to the memorial site. The march was primarily meant to be a protest against violence in general. Furthermore, the aim of the march was to demonstrate the organisations’ collective commitment to a civic society that consists of people from a broad variety of ethnicities and religions. In the meeting in the mosque that preceded the march, Amsterdam’s alderman of social affairs and education Ahmed Aboutaleb, himself a Dutch-Moroccan, specifically addressed the Moroccan community, albeit subtly, by stating that
‘there is no place for people who do not share the fundamental values of an open society, such as Dutch society. The freedom of religion, the freedom of speech and the non-discrimination principle are the most important of these values. Everyone who does not share these core values should be wise and leave’.[19]
This citation was repeated over and over by the media and became ‘the moment’ of the march. Aboutaleb was invited onto numerous television shows and interviewed time and again in the week that followed.
- On Tuesday November 9, the Dutch-Moroccan Cooperative Organizations of Amsterdam[20] organised a bicycle tour, ‘Cycling for Togetherness’,[21] from the west side of Amsterdam to the east. The route was symbolic: Mohammed B., the assassin, was from Amsterdam-West, while Theo van Gogh was from Amsterdam-East. The tour ended in Oosterpark, the public park bordering the Linnaeusstraat, where the bicyclists gathered under the motto ‘Murdered for speaking out. We Don’t Accept Extremism’.[22]
Tuesday, November 9th had been chosen for the bicycle tour because the cremation ceremony was to take place that evening. Although we should acknowledge that social crises can never be entirely ‘solved’, this ceremony, with its mixture of ritual and some almost entertaining contributions, came closest to a closure of the liminal period. The ceremony was well covered by the media, making it another highpoint of the interconnectedness between ritual, space and media.
Van Gogh was cremated at the Nieuwe Oosterbegraafplaats, a cemetery on the eastern edge of Amsterdam, not far from where Van Gogh had lived and not far from where he was killed. By exception, the cemetery was closed to the general public for the cremation ceremony. Besides distinguishing people with a personal relationship to the deceased from the general public, the spatial arrangements also provided a hierarchical division within the latter category. Admission to the cemetery’s auditorium, where the actual farewell ceremony was held, was restricted to family and intimates of the deceased. The latter included, because of the nature of Van Gogh’s activities, many people from the media (producers and celebrities). A large tent had been set up next to the auditorium for public figures, politicians and government representatives, journalists and other people who had not been part of Van Gogh’s inner circle, but who had been invited because his death was a public occasion. In the tent, the service could be followed on a television screen. Another space had been delineated on the street in front of the cemetery entrance. Here, people who had not been personally invited gathered to follow the ceremony on a large screen. They included people from his neighbourhood and from Amsterdam, lesser journalists, activists, researchers, and everybody else who felt the urge to be there, which ended up being about 500 in total.
The ceremony was broadcast live on national television so that the general public could follow the event in the private spaces of their homes. Again, as I will show, the selection of images and the general format of the presentation made this media event more than just some neutral documentation of ‘things taking place.’ The broadcast provided closure in a way that serves as a good example of how media work to affirm and construct social bonding (cf. Couldry 2003, 66).
To understand the broadcast’s potential, I would first like to mention the selection of Maartje van Weegen to provide the voice-over commentary. This television commentator is well known for her coverage of royal funerals, marriages and other official and royal events. Her voice made the ceremony perceptible as a national event. At the same time, her voice also gave credence and an air of national importance to the media themselves, albeit implicitly. The choice of Maartje van Weegen clearly illustrates Couldry’s observation that, in the context of media events, ‘media work hardest to ground the representational authority on which they rely for their everyday practice’ (Couldry 2003, 69).
Another significant detail of the broadcast was the decision to skip the actual opening of the ceremony (a solo by a well-known Dutch violinist) and instead provide the audience with a day-to-day chronology of ‘the most important news items’ from November 2 until November 9. Each day was presented in the form of an obituary, a broad white frame with the respective dates in black. The design was inspired by the title of Van Gogh’s film about the assassination of Pim Fortuyn, 0605, which in its turn had rephrased 9-11. A collage of images provided summaries of each day within the white frame. In this way, the media gave the Van Gogh murder and its aftermath a narrative structure, with a beginning (0211) and an end (0911).[23] And by doing so, they led the way towards the forging of a closure of the crisis.
During the speeches, close-ups of the speakers alternated with close-ups of celebrities (including politicians) and, less frequently, with images of the audience out on the street, again re-establishing the authority of the television medium. The images of the ordinary people on the street made them ‘representatives of the people’ for the time being, rather than the select company of politicians in the restricted area. Each speech, including the opening speech by Van Gogh’s mother, was rewarded with applause in the auditorium, in the tent and out on the street. This applause expressed support and unity, and therefore added to the closure potential of the event, but also intensified the event’s performance character.[24] Important in this respect were the remarks about recent anti-Muslim attacks made in several of the speeches. According to the speakers, Theo would have strongly condemned these as the opposite of free speech.
Thus, we not only have to acknowledge the ritual power of the media in such societal events, but also their active involvement in them, and the deliberate choices they make. For family and friends, the cremation ceremony meant the closure of a hectic and chaotic period. They could now begin with a period of more private mourning. For society in general, the broadcast of the ceremony also meant the closure of a hectic and chaotic period. Now, society could return to normal, albeit with increased tensions. In fact, a few more violent incidents against Muslims occurred after the broadcast, but the threat of violence that had lingered in the atmosphere, gradually faded away.