Based on several cases, this article develops a thought inspired by the Journal of Philosophy of Education’s special issue on the Educational Value of Monuments (55.3). The article is a reflection about the locations which make statues able to be transformed materially and semiotically, and which provoke discussion about what is to be learnt by understanding the monument as a fragment and semiophore. I argue that the monument—located in a specific place which makes its contextual meaning—represents fragments, in Latin fractures (...) or cracks, as an expression of the violence inflicted on an imaginary whole. Defining and accepting a monument as a fragment allows us to understand each change that may happen to it—including removal or relocation—as an incentive to learn about the meanings of new wholes and to consciously respond to them. On the one hand, this can effectively stop mimetic pressures to reproduce aggression towards monuments. On the other, it can create a ground for shaping an ethical attitude of co-responsibility for a common world that is not exclusively human. The strictly educational sense of the proposed redefinition of the monument would be to radicalize sensitivity to its inherent feature, which is its fragmentary nature, resulting in the fragility of the heritage it co-creates in the space of commonality. In the proposed understanding of the monument, apart from the emphasis on significant fragmentation, an important role is played by the decisive abandonment of the anthropocentric perspective. In the new perspective of the common world, the monument becomes an ephemeral heritage, and its most current educational value seems to lie there. (shrink)