In the APSA Public Scholarship Program, graduate students in political science produce summaries of new research in the American Political Science Review. This piece, written by Raymundo Lopez, covers the new article by Lee-Or Ankori-Karlinsky, “Political Symbols and Social Order: Confederate Monuments and Performative Violence in the Post-Reconstruction U.S. South”.
A New Social Order
In the aftermath of civil conflict, societies must do more than rebuild. They must define what the new social order looks like. Political symbols and public memorials play a central role in this process, signaling who holds power and how the past should be remembered.
In the decades following the American Civil War, lynchings and public executions emerged as defining features of the post-Reconstruction South, used to reinforce white supremacy and reverse the political gains Black Americans had secured after abolition. Alongside this violence, Confederate monuments began filling up courthouse grounds, town squares, and other public spaces. Together, these developments appeared to move in tandem and signaled the emergence of a newly defined social order. However, a closer examination reveals a troubling contradiction.
Why Did One Decline as the Other Expanded?
While lynchings continued into the 20th century, their frequency declined significantly from their peak in the 1890s, even as Confederate monument construction accelerated in the 1910s. So, if both violence and monuments reinforced the same hierarchy, why did one decline as the other expanded? This puzzle sits at the very center of Lee-Or Ankori-Karlinsky’s recent article. Existing studies would lead us to expect that symbols reinforcing white supremacy should intensify anti-Black violence. But the political scientist offers a different explanation: rather than fueling violence, confederate monuments might have reduced the need for it.
Seen this way, symbols and violence serve similar functions. They communicate who holds power. Confederate monuments affirmed whites’ dominance while reinforcing the subordination of Black Americans within the social order, thereby reducing the need to enforce it through violence. Building on this argument, Ankori-Karlinsky outlines two key expectations. First, if Confederate monuments lessened the need for violence, then we should observe fewer lynchings where those monuments were built. Second, if these symbols stabilized the social order, then their removal should produce the opposite effect.
When Do Monuments Replace Violence—and When Do They Bring It Back?
Ankori-Karlinsky turns to the post-Reconstruction South to examine these questions. Using data on monument dedications and lynching events across counties in the former Confederacy (1877-1928), he compares how violence changed over time. This approach tracks counties before and after monuments are constructed, and compares them to similar counties without monuments. In social science, this method is known as a difference-in-difference approach.
The results strongly support both of the researcher’s central arguments. Do counties that receive Confederate monuments experience less violence over time? Yes. Counties in which Confederate monuments were erected were significantly less likely to experience lynchings and other forms of performative violence. The author notes that this effect was not immediate but gradual. As these symbolic monuments spread, the need to publicly enforce the social order through violence declined, showing a pattern of substitution.
“This uncertain yet familiar atmosphere intensifies conversations about how the new order should take shape.”Now, what happens when these symbols are removed? If monuments reduce violence by stabilizing the social order, then their removal should unsettle it. Ankori-Karlinsky finds evidence supporting this expectation. In the modern period, counties that removed Confederate monuments experienced an increase in anti-Black hate crimes. This suggests that when the meaning of the social order is contested, violence can reemerge as a way to reassert it (the reverse of the substitution effect).
The analysis also considers other broader social and economic trends to rule out alternative explanations. Notably, his analysis found that the decline in violence was more visible in areas where racial threat was likely the highest (i.e., counties with larger or growing Black populations).
America’s New (Old) World Order
Ankori-Karlinsky’s work suggests that Confederate monuments did not simply reflect white supremacy—they helped stabilize it. By making the social order visible, monuments acted as a physical placeholder and therefore reduced the need to enforce it through public violence. The author makes clear that lynchings did not disappear altogether, and that several other factors contributed to their eventual decline. Even so, his work offers a new way to understand how these symbols shaped the enforcement of racial hierarchy during one of America’s darkest chapters.
A major takeaway from his research is the powerful yet delicate role of monuments. When erected, they help maintain the social order. Remove them, and they can unsettle it. Today, debates about Confederate symbols continue to unfold across many American communities. Recently, the Trump administration has broadened efforts to restore Confederate monuments through executive orders, while similar efforts have been taken to restore US military bases named after confederate generals. This uncertain yet familiar atmosphere intensifies conversations about how the new order should take shape. Confederate symbol supporters often appeal to restoring memory and historical truth, advancing a social order that echoes older times. Ultimately, these tensions remind us that monuments are not just about remembering the past. They are an essential tool in shaping present-day power relations.
- Raymundo Lopez is a PhD candidate in political science at Michigan State University studying survey experiments, intersectionality, and elections. He is the creator of Atom Laboratories, a YouTube channel that uses multimedia storytelling to make political science engaging and accessible to wider audiences. Lopez has collaborated with nonprofits like the Women’s Center of Greater Lansing to simplify ballot initiatives and currently leads the Social Science Initiative at FLI SCI, where he helps first-generation and limited-access students explore social science research and build data literacy.
- ANKORI-KARLINSKY, LEE-OR. 2026. “Political Symbols and Social Order: Confederate Monuments and Performative Violence in the Post-Reconstruction U.S. South.”, American Political Science Review: 120(2): 681–706.
- About the APSA Public Scholarship Program.
Be the first to comment