Statue as Shrine?

The addition of Williams’ remains to the physical monument offers yet another interpretation of the space: the intent to turn it into a shrine. Walker hoped that this inclusion would encourage “pausing with respect in the quiet quality of the park at a place where the dust from his grave rests.” [13] In many ways, he was trying to construct the terrace as a sacred space. The inscription on the monument reads “here reposes dust from the grave of Roger Williams”: a statement that makes the monument more imposing. The metal fence that surrounds the memorial becomes protective, making sure that no one desecrates this shrine.

Molly Cousins, a researcher at Brown University, wrote that at this site, there was a “disconnect between perceived, expected meaning and actual usage in the mind.”[14] Were people really treating this park as the sacred reflecting place that Walker intended? Not from what I observed. In my many visits and interactions with the monument space, I noticed that most visitors did not interact with the monument at all, and if they did, it is not for a long time or particularly thoughtfully.

Like many monuments, the realized, lived experience of the space differs from the intention. The stakeholders who dedicated it were steadfast in their intention to honor Wiliams. However, most of the present-day visitors use the space for recreation and gathering. While engaging with this monument space, I tried to understand why the visitors were not interacting with the large stone monument. Were they drawn to the terrace for the view of the city and thus never intended to pay any attention to the monument? Is the metal fence off-putting to the point that it discourages active participation? Does the lack of historical information about Williams prevent visitors from fully grappling with the tension between truth and myth at the monument? Likely, the visitor is subconsciously considering a combination of these factors along with others that I failed to identify.