  |
  |
|
||
|
|
|
Cultures are good and regimes are bad Presentation at ICME in Banz 2011 My reflection is around what I see as implicit messages that museums often convey about how the world’s social and cultural realities are constituted. And my intention is to air a few simple points based on rather gross generalizations, perhaps with rather exaggerated conclusions. We’ll see. My focus is particularly on museums in Europe that make exhibitions about non-European cultures/societies (like museums of ethnography/Völkerkunde) and on museums that make exhibitions about non-European minorities living within their own country (which can be all sorts of local, regional, national museums). In my abstract, I ask: What if such museums were run by political scientists and journalists instead of ethnologists/ethnographers/anthropologists/folklorists and educators? We museum people might quickly point out that their angle would probably be over-focused on politics and conflict – they’d fall into what I could (in the tabloid spirit of news media) call “The Everything is politics and conflict Bias”. We museum people might say that this might strengthen an already existing negatively biased impression of non-Europeans. We museum people might even claim that what we do is the opposite: we focus on the positive sides of non-European cultures and minorities in order to reduce such prejudices. But is a focus on the positive sides of non-European cultures and minorities by definition not prejudiced? And can we be certain that a positively biased impression of non-European cultures and minorities will reduce negatively biased impressions? My answer – which is an assumption that would need back-up from research – is that on a superficial level, focusing on the positive sides of non-European cultures probably mostly functions positively, but on a deeper level I’ll argue that it may function negatively. Let me go back 100-150 years: When museums were established displaying non-European societies – and in fact also those displaying societies of common people in Europe! – such societies were portrayed as cultures consisting of almost unchangeable customs more or less repeating themselves from generation to generation. The term “traditional culture” became a general characterisation of such cultures. The message conveyed was that people in such traditional cultures were passive cultural products, disinterested in or unable to change, and if they did change, their real culture was destroyed and their authenticity was lost. This division of the world into those that act and those that are traditional; those that change and those that have a culture that cannot be changed without becoming “inauthentic”; is one of the most durable conceptions of the last 150 years. Who keeps it alive? What about museums? There are still many museums that stick to displaying unchangeable “traditional cultures”, particularly in permanent exhibitions that are costly and should preferably not be changed for the next 20-30 years. Showing “traditional culture” ensures that the exhibition do not look outdated too quickly. One might assume that the public one the one hand accept that this is the usual “museal” way of conceiving the world, and on the other hand it probably fits well with their already established preconceptions. A common modification of such exhibitions is to include photographs and objects from the realities of today, but often conveyed as modern elements – implicating that these are alien elements brought in from the outside – to an in-reality traditional culture. In spite of the obvious intention of breaking down the impression that no development has happened, I would claim that the effect is rather to strengthen the impression that these people are passive cultural products, being dependent on modern elements brought to them. Another common modification is – in order to avoid promoting negative stereotypes – to not include in the exhibitions elements that can be seen as giving a negative image. This is usually done in silence, as an unspoken agreement. But sympathetic in intention as this may be, I’d say it even more strongly conveys a picture of harmless, passive peoples, in unchanging harmony with tradition and nature. In short, I think too many museums are still hiding in the seeming safety of the “traditional culture” approach, not quite realising that their good intentions may feed old prejudices about non-European cultures and minorities. In order to break out of this and show that modernity is after all completely normal among all peoples of the world, the Norwegian Folk Museum has, in an old apartment house turned museum, let one of the apartments (from different periods and different classes) be the apartment of a Pakistani family of 2002. An excellent idea! But what happens then? The public easily fall into the One of a kind Trap – an example is seen as the example. For what do the majority Norwegians see? Judging from some reactions, the apparent normal interpretation is that they see the Pakistani apartment. Not one of several variations, as endless as among themselves. Of course, majority Norwegians have no others to compare with. The implicit message then becomes that (more or less) all Pakistanis are alike. This is a widespread problem, really not easy to solve: The majority sees only a few, selected, separated parts of non-European people’s lives and cultural expressions. For some these become valued elements of inspiration and joy, for others – possibly a large part of the majority population – they may become signs of uniformity, showing that “they are all alike”. How does this compare with conceptions of the culture of the majority? “Everyone” knows that the European majority culture is extremely diversified. A display of “traditional” Norwegian peasant culture at a folk museum hardly affects the way the majority are looked upon today, neither by themselves nor others. Change do not make the majority “inauthentic”; the majority culture is not “destroyed”; a feeling of lack of continuity is hardly there; the majority make and receive new elements continuously. The ruling classes of Europe – from kings and aristocrats to the middle classes of today – have never, ever been described as “traditional”. Change is the basic idea in all museum displays about Europe; they are about cultural expressions changing over time, and about actions changing history. Going back to the “what if political scientists and journalists had run museums”-question and what we can learn from them, I’d say that particularly in the communication of non-European cultures and minorities, museums should far more strongly convey variety, convey individuality and disagreement, convey that change is just as much integrated in non-European cultures as in the European ones, etc. And museums should of course involve themselves in current issues, also political ones, when that is natural. But neither should they do it like museums usually do, emphasising traditional cultures, nor like the media do, emphasising actions and conflicts. There is a third way for the museums. A quick example: In Norway there is a regulation deciding that police uniforms shall be neutral and not convey any particular religion or other view of life that may make the public doubt the neutrality of the police officer. A young Muslim lady complained to the media that this prevented her from joining the police because she would then not be allowed to wear the hijab as part of the police uniform. This released a lively debate in media, quickly turning into for or against whether Muslim women should be allowed to wear hijab everywhere or not. One museum – the Oslo City Museum – took up the challenge and made an exhibition with an explicit reference to the debate. An exhibition about what? About beautiful hijabs, made by two young hijab designers. Almost on autopilot the museum chose the “museal” way: Show beautiful objects. Turn the difficult question into a harmless show of “cultures are good”. Show solidarity with a minority. Show solidarity with Muslim women’s rights. But was the museum’s choice harmless? Did it convince the public that “cultures are good”? Did this show of solidarity benefit the minority in the larger picture? Did all Muslim women see this as a show of solidarity? The issue on hijabs and police uniforms resulted in a stream of hate messages on various internet forums, demanding that Muslims should be thrown out of Norway – the usual stuff. But there were other voices, stressing that the principle of neutral uniforms for law enforcers is basic, important for all, minorities and majority alike. Some of those stressing this principle were police women with a Muslim background. Did anyone show these Muslim police women solidarity? Or did they fall outside the usual pattern? My point here is not whether the one or the other was right. The point is: By choosing to take side in this way, the museum lost the opportunity to relate to the real complexity of the situation. They could have reflected upon the fact that here were two important and honourable principles set against each other. In a case like this, the much of the general public does have an understanding of the inherent dilemma. When a museum chooses to ignore this dilemma, it puts itself on level with those with a very low level of reflection, thus probably rather increasing than decreasing xenophobia. Accepting the challenge of the dilemmas caused by real complexity is in my opinion the constructive way for museums whenever dealing with such a situation. Not the “cultures are good” path of strengthening old colonial conceptions of “traditional” peoples; not the “regimes are bad” path strengthening the fear of non-European unchangeable irrationality, and not the combination of the two, both in each way nourishing the growing xenophobia. I am sure many of you think that this approach is far too elitist. And would be boring, with the “on the one hand versus on the other hand” kind of content. I would say this is radical and may even appear as controversial. For who conveys complexities and dilemmas these days? Not the museums, not the media, not the politicians. Don’t underestimate your public. They like to join you in reflecting upon complex issues. |
| ▲ til toppen Tilbake til reiserapporter 2011 |