Object Diasporas!

This commentary looks at Basu’s Object Diasporas, Resourcing Communities: Sierra Leonean Collections in the Globabl Museumscape and Catalini’s work Telling Another Story: Western Museums and the Creation of Non-Western Identity.

The research question Anna Catalini asks in her work is “how effectively are museums bridging memories and histories, especially when [these museums] are dealing with non-Western groups and non-Western collections?” Catalini answers this question by identifying Western museums as informal cultural forums. She argues that the formation of cultural identity can occur (in the museum setting) when a group engages with museum works through collective memory and history. The argument is made that by calling to attention individual memories and turning them into collective histories, museums preserve different cultural identities and therefore have a positive impact on community cohesion. The article’s main claim then is that non-Western collections in Western museums contribute to the understanding of history and memory by bringing the entire community together and constructing identity.

Catalini analyzes Western museums as social contexts as well she takes on an analysis of non-Western groups to communicate her primary point.

Catalini’s claim is believable only on the grounds that with she draws attention to how important it is for non-Western groups to be involved in this identity construction. However, the article (towards the end) recognizes that it is still curators who act as official spokespersons of the narratives of museums and not a joint effort on behalf of the hosting society and the hosted group as it should be. So while Catalini does bring up an interesting point in her work – that non-Western museums and collections have the ability to construct identity for non-Western groups – we can’t exactly see evidence or proof of her claim taking shape in everyday life because she very well recognizes that it is still Western, white curators forming the identities of non-Western groups.

And so while Catalini does a good job of raising the thought-provoking idea that indeed museums can be spaces for non-Western groups to take their individual memories and turn them into collective histories, thereby bringing agency to a collective community voice, cohesion, and identity, she doesn’t really get the opportunity to completely round off her argument. While it should be a joint initiative on the part of non-Western groups and Western groups to negotiate this within the museum context, this “task” remains in the hands of Western groups. It is therefore Western groups who still hold the power when it comes to identity formation of non-Western groups within the museum setting. I guess in this way this is both the strength and weakness of Catalini’s argument – she recognizes the limitations and how far her argument really goes. At the same time, her argument doesn’t hold much weight if we see that indeed it can’t really be identity formation if the non-Western groups seeking that identity aren’t even creating it. Other people (curators) are still creating that identity.

Secondly then there is the Basu article which similarly seeks to reinvent the discourse on museums and the issue of taking an object from one place/context and presenting it in another. Instead of seeing museum art as “cultural loot” with the only legitimate course of action being repatriation from the community it came from, Basu argues that we need to understand dispersed collections as object diasporas and realize the flow of cultural capital these non-Western collections provide. Like Catalini, Basu makes the claim that these collections play a valuable role in Sierra Leone’s post colonial rehabilitation and that remittances from the object diaspora contribute to the Sierra Leonean culture immensely. Examples of these remittances include how these collections act as a cultural resource for SL populations abroad, that the collections can positively shape public perceptions of other societies, cultural tourism leads to economic value, etc.

I honestly don’t really buy any of Basu’s claims and, if we’re being really honest, the article was actually quite offensive. Funded by the British Academy, the article seemed to just be a piece that attempted to justify the history of British colonels “politely” taking items that belong to Sierra Leoneans. Page 5 notes that the taking of Sierra Leonean objects to Britain didn’t occur as violently as it did in some other colonial areas; here it was a more equivocal process “albeit within the broader colonial context of unequal power relations.” Basu’s claim that we need to look at African art from the perspective of diaspora, art as objects in motion, and move beyond colonial categories of fixed ethnicities, and geography is just really hard to do when EVERYTHING ELSE in European society is structured along these lines. How can we look beyond colonial categories of fixed ethnicities and geography when it comes to art but ignore these categories when it comes to everything else, including people. Especially in a largely homogenous society such as Europe, if I’m someone living there with a Sierra Leonean background my ethnicity and geography (place of origin) will always define me – it will define anyone who, especially visibly, is not European. Basu can’t justify this claim that we need to see African art “beyond colonial categories of fixed identities and geography” if we don’t do that for everything else in society.

Further, the articles’ assertion of dispersed collections of Sierra Leonean art abroad as providing remittances such as positively shaping public perceptions of other societies just isn’t true. Ethnic collections in Western museums often have the opposite effect of creating distance between two cultures. Western museums seem to frame ethnic collections as fundamentally different – non-modern, primitive, really ancient, etc, and in doing so, frame non-Western ethnic groups as such. Basu’s claim, like Catalini’s, that SL collections are a cultural resource for the SL community abroad can also be questioned. Think about who really is able to access/afford these museums and see these collections? Also, if I’m from a Sierra Leonean background living in the "West", am I really going to go to a museum to find out more about my culture and heritage? Or am I going to talk to people in my community? Basu notes how object diasporas create cultural tourism and economic value…but for who? The society in which these collections are held or the communities from which these objects come from? All in all, I didn’t find Basu’s analysis too insightful. Catalini at least draws attention to the limitations of her argument – that is, diasporic groups and hosting communities need to work together to realize the cultural resource that can be gained from museum collections.

Just one question this week:
How do this week’s readings about objects relate with our discussion last week about objects? Both this week and last week we talk about objects taken from one area and context and placed in another: qat coming to Europe vs. art coming to Europe. What are the differences? What are similarities?