This commentary focuses on the Hilden piece titled Race for Sale: Narratives of Posession in Two “Ethnic” Museums as well as Carol Thompson’s titled Slaves to Sculpture: A Response to Patricia Penn Hilden, both articles published in the Drama Review.
The Hilden article discusses two museums: the George Gustav Heye Centre for the National Musuem of the American and the Museum for African Art. In the article, Hilden attempts to uncover the extent to which these two museums have “moved their centre” from the overculture’s national history of Europe to that of Africa and the African diaspora. Hilden argues that both spaces attempt to reconfigure a “new museum” by, for example, collaborating with the diasporic populations in their presentation of exhibitions and inverting negative stereotypes i.e. (turning artifact into ART). Hilden problematizes these initiatives and the vision of the “new museum” by asserting that good intentions aside, museums continue to be “post modern muddles dressed up in global disguises.” In other words, the two museums she takes as examples have not made much movement (if any) away from the Eurocentric centre. “Underneath the post colonial skin breathes the same old Euro-body, Euro-centre…,” she concludes.
Hilden brings up many thought provoking arguments to make her claim and this was really the strong point of the article. Among the most memorable are her dilemmas with multiculturalism, the commodity of art, connections to the market economy, and guest curators – she artfully and really thoughtfully summarizes the various arguments against museums as “new”, “different”, and culturally sensitive. Particularly, her mention of the importance of the role language in museums and how it maintains Europe as the centre was extremely central to her main claim. But what I think the article did best was walk us through both the museums and some of their problematic exhibitions to really give the reader a clear picture of what’s going on, why is it a problem, etc.
In Carol Thompson’s response article to Hilden it was a little bit difficult to discern her primary claims and objectives. At some points, she agreed with Hilden, at other moments she vehemently disagreed. She also made a lot of interesting arguments and connections in between. It seemed to be that Thomas’ primary articulation was that museum exhibitions are powerful engines of meaning and can have an “agency of display”. She argues that in order to get away from the Eurocentric centre, museums along with diasporic populations, need to look at the art themselves which has the potential to communicate African cultural ideals. She closely follows with last week’s readings on the power of museums and similarly argues that museums are a strong cultural resource.
For some reason, unlike last week’s readings, Thompson does a good job of thoroughly explaining how cultural resources and ideals can be acquired from museums by diasporic populations – by visiting museums, diasporic people can go there and see their history. She explains how this concept works and ultimately makes it clear how, for example, the African diaspora may look at African art and seek it as a cultural resource for understanding their culture. While not everyone may agree with this opinion, Thompson explains the process in a far less defensive manner than some of the readings from last week. Further, she also does a good job of explaining the process of how art pieces make it from all over Africa to all over Europe and the connections to slavery such a process invokes.
Questions:
1. What are the commonalities in issues and dilemmas faced by the Maharaja exhibition and the various exhibitions at the Museum for African Art?
2. What was Thompson’s main claim?
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Panman Pat McNeilly in class next week
Next class we're going to have Panman Pat join us for the second hour. He's an icon of pan in Toronto and was the only steel pan player in Toronto's first Caribana in 1967. Give the video a look and check the PanMan website www.panman.ca
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Week 9 - Deconstruction of Museums
One of the readings for the week by Hilden, talks about the way museologists have been trying to totally 'deconstruct' the overall idea of a traditional museums so that displays and ideas do not look as if they are 'produced' or shaped in any specific way. There is often a racialized and gendered nature within the different museums, and Hilden speaks about how the 'universalist' approach to modern curators still does not do justice in a way that prevents people from thinking in a Euro-centered way. At the end of the day, museums get their shaping and orientation in a specific way depending on the curator, their areas of expertise, and even because of sponsors and bodies that fund the institution which play a big role in the overall orientation of the museum.
Hilden makes a very good point about how museums further push the limitless impression of colonialism as an aid to groups of people in the past, as well as Eurocentric practices and norms as a focal point of viewing the different displays within a museum. What does one consider as normal, or in what way can people look at something and think they are better or worse than another culture? When it comes to museums, they shouldn't portray any particular sides favouring nor should their be a portrayal of something like colonialism as an advancing agent in a country or groups of peoples development. However, it is very hard to do so because of what exactly a museum is in the first place -- Museums as mentioned above, are influenced by particular people and is basically an institution that houses a collection of 'things' which are chosen at the end of the day. What gets chosen, and what doesn't can always be questioned regardless of what type of museum it is or where it is located. Everything simply cannot be stored and displayed in a museum from every single country or point in time, but we trust the judgement of curators to display items that they think are significant to display to people or are in rotation across the globe. Hilden refers to 'timeless Africa' and the clustering of objects that show a 'universal' appreciation for the capitalist structure, and also the fact that such objects can be replicated and found for sale so that the classic, timeless, and African look 'can be yours too'. We can then understand the significance and overall power that a museum can have on a mainstream audience in the western world.
Question #1: Is there a way for museums to become a place where the general public can drop off items and have them displayed?
Question #2: How do you see museums evolving over the next 50 years? More accessible? More digital content online?
Hilden makes a very good point about how museums further push the limitless impression of colonialism as an aid to groups of people in the past, as well as Eurocentric practices and norms as a focal point of viewing the different displays within a museum. What does one consider as normal, or in what way can people look at something and think they are better or worse than another culture? When it comes to museums, they shouldn't portray any particular sides favouring nor should their be a portrayal of something like colonialism as an advancing agent in a country or groups of peoples development. However, it is very hard to do so because of what exactly a museum is in the first place -- Museums as mentioned above, are influenced by particular people and is basically an institution that houses a collection of 'things' which are chosen at the end of the day. What gets chosen, and what doesn't can always be questioned regardless of what type of museum it is or where it is located. Everything simply cannot be stored and displayed in a museum from every single country or point in time, but we trust the judgement of curators to display items that they think are significant to display to people or are in rotation across the globe. Hilden refers to 'timeless Africa' and the clustering of objects that show a 'universal' appreciation for the capitalist structure, and also the fact that such objects can be replicated and found for sale so that the classic, timeless, and African look 'can be yours too'. We can then understand the significance and overall power that a museum can have on a mainstream audience in the western world.
Question #1: Is there a way for museums to become a place where the general public can drop off items and have them displayed?
Question #2: How do you see museums evolving over the next 50 years? More accessible? More digital content online?
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Museums and Culture
In the readings for today’s lecture, we are given insight into the role museums play in the preservation, presentation, and promotion of culture. This is a contentious area of study as the readings have shown, with there existing many social, cultural, and political implications when it comes to the collection and exhibition of cultural items.
In the reading by Gurian, the author delves into the nature of museums as sites of memory. This is a theme present in all of the readings, but Gurian goes into great detail assessing the role that museums play in both preserving and constructing memory through the exhibition of certain objects. Museums are institutions which are socially significant around the world, with much importance being placed on them as centers of education and culture. As such, museums exist as a “social contract” (pg.36) as Gurian puts it; they cement the historical in the present, allowing future generations to remember the past. Gurian sets out to define what “museum objects” are, and how museums are defined by these objects, while at the same time giving definition to these very items. She discusses the fact that objects in the museum sense are generally defined as ‘real’ objects. But this definition is troublesome in and of itself. Real objects are not simply one cohesive group, but are made up of things that are “one of a kind” and “an example of” (pg. 26). With this in mind, the discussion moves onto how these objects are treated in museums in comparison to other institutions such as aquariums and zoos. This comparison brings to light the fact that a collection of “real” objects isn’t exclusively the domain of the inanimate, but can also extend to the living as well. As well it is brought to the reader’s attention that even though certain objects may be viewable in two different institutions, it does not necessarily mean that both are to be considered museums.
Another area touched upon by Gurian’s article is the issue of where the meaning of an object comes from. Is it the visual image? The historical story? Its cultural context? All of these are important questions to think about. For example Gurian discusses how a bowl which has been labelled as having been used in Auschwitz is immediately thrown into a new world of historical and cultural significance which the same bowl would not have been if it were not labelled as such (pg. 29). This brings light to the realization that in some cases presentation may be important for creating a cultural and historical awareness for the object and the public which are viewing it. Gurian ends her article by postulating that civilized society needs museums as an agent of social cohesion and history. The use of the term civilized is something which bothered me throughout much of the article. It places cultural objects as items which Western/civilized society must take care of; otherwise they may be lost to the ages. This of course means that the appropriation of cultural items will occur under the guise of protection, an issue which has plagued many museums in the 20th and 21st centuries.
This issue of ownership is something discussed in some detail in the Catalani article. Like the Gurian article, Catalani centers her discussion of museums on the notions of history, memory, and culture. The importance of museums as catalysts for cultural identity formation is something which is discussed more thoroughly in Catalani’s article. By placing objects into museums, they are given a place in a historical context, which can aid in the formation of cultural identity for those people viewing the object; especially in the case of those in Diasporas. In order to preserve memory, museums are an essential part of the process as many of these items may be lost otherwise. Unlike Gurian, Catalani does speak directly to the role which colonialization has played in the collection and exhibition of cultural items from non-Western civilizations, and how this history underscores the Western-centric nature of museums as a whole. This is where the issue of ownership comes into play. If an object, which is of cultural importance to a certain people is removed from their homeland, do those people have a right to request the item be returned? Catalani suggests that collaboration between those peoples and the cultural institutions be bartered, as museums in essence are looking to preserve these items, but at the same time they have been appropriated in most cases under the guise of colonial rule. This seems like an acceptable solution to the questions raised by both articles.
Week 7 commentaries: Migration and (Il)licity: Qat in transit
Dear friends,
I was unable to post the week 7 commentaries because I was very sick last week. I have asked professor for permission to post my commentaries and he said it would be okay. Once again, I am very sorry for this inconvenience and wish all the best to everyone in our class.
Cheers,
One of the last week readings discussed about democracy and its limitation in its definition and practices. The article “politics of deliberation” challenges the idea that democratic government is a key factor for political identification in the Middle East. The article divided into four sections, in which the first part talked about the limitation of ‘democracy’ definition. The second part of the essay argued that everyday practices of vibrant political contestation in Yemen challenged several aspects of the public sphere theory. Then part three gave in-depth analysis by using ethnographic evidence to specify how qat chews operate as performative, democratic practices. And in the final section, the article helps to address on why vibrant public sphere activities like those found in Yemen do not necessarily lead to contested elections. Furthermore, it argued that there is a distinction between democratic practices and liberal values in the case of Yemen.
Among many important points, I found two things that was interesting: In the first part of the essay, the author wanted to show that there is a serious problem with the definition of democracy. He thought that democracy should not just be about having competitive elections. In this regard, he posed a very interesting question: “when outcomes are all but uncertain because a candidate is obvious popular or the political machine proves particular efficacious, such as in Chicago, does this mean the system is undemocratic?” I must admit that I agree with his view because I also think that by saying it is a democratic government, one cannot just rely on the outcome of the elections. There is a very thin line between an outcome of elections and popular votes; different countries treasure different values and they interpret democracy differently.
The debate on the relationship between democracy and development has been controversial. Yet we do not know whether democracy is a prerequisite for a country’s economic development or the other way around. The article also touched upon this issue although it was briefly discussed.
The second interesting point was the statement that the author mentioned “…authorization position-makes elections the key criterion of representative democracy; representation is “seen as a grant of authority by the voters to the elected officials”… The problem with the formalistic approach from this perspective is that “if representing means merely acting with special rights, or acting with someone else bearing the consequences, then there can be no such thing as continual accountability or immediate responsiveness, no account of how those elected actually govern, and no standards for assessing whether their policies work for or against the citizens who have elected them”. I found these quotations are very interesting because it is true that the idea of democracy is contradicted within itself. On one hand, the idea of having democratic government is to have the government elected by its people and is accountable for its people. On the other hand, it seems to be not practical because how can we measure accountability at the first place since every country has different set of value? Furthermore, can a country expect an ongoing accountability without having discontinuity or a break in the transaction period?
The article was clear from its start to its end about what the author was trying to argue. However, I find it difficult to make connection between the meaning of the article and course material. Since our course is dealing with diaspora object and the reading is talking about political integration, what is the connection between the two?
Unlike the first article, the second article “Khat and the creation of tradition in the Somali diaspora”, Alex Klein looked at the Somali community in the UK. He found that it was not true that the root of social and medical problems lie within the community. In other words, he argued that the problems is associated with khat use are not simply reducible to the pharmacological drug, but need to take into account a new cultural context of its use within the UK. Particularly, he wanted to show how the Somalis in the UK are divided in terms of khat status that might link them to unemployment, social exclusion, family breakdown and poor health.
Overall I found the article is short and well written with clear evidences supporting the author’s argument. I found the article is also interesting because I never heard anything about Somali diaspora before; thus, I learn a lot about the group after reading this article.
I was unable to post the week 7 commentaries because I was very sick last week. I have asked professor for permission to post my commentaries and he said it would be okay. Once again, I am very sorry for this inconvenience and wish all the best to everyone in our class.
Cheers,
One of the last week readings discussed about democracy and its limitation in its definition and practices. The article “politics of deliberation” challenges the idea that democratic government is a key factor for political identification in the Middle East. The article divided into four sections, in which the first part talked about the limitation of ‘democracy’ definition. The second part of the essay argued that everyday practices of vibrant political contestation in Yemen challenged several aspects of the public sphere theory. Then part three gave in-depth analysis by using ethnographic evidence to specify how qat chews operate as performative, democratic practices. And in the final section, the article helps to address on why vibrant public sphere activities like those found in Yemen do not necessarily lead to contested elections. Furthermore, it argued that there is a distinction between democratic practices and liberal values in the case of Yemen.
Among many important points, I found two things that was interesting: In the first part of the essay, the author wanted to show that there is a serious problem with the definition of democracy. He thought that democracy should not just be about having competitive elections. In this regard, he posed a very interesting question: “when outcomes are all but uncertain because a candidate is obvious popular or the political machine proves particular efficacious, such as in Chicago, does this mean the system is undemocratic?” I must admit that I agree with his view because I also think that by saying it is a democratic government, one cannot just rely on the outcome of the elections. There is a very thin line between an outcome of elections and popular votes; different countries treasure different values and they interpret democracy differently.
The debate on the relationship between democracy and development has been controversial. Yet we do not know whether democracy is a prerequisite for a country’s economic development or the other way around. The article also touched upon this issue although it was briefly discussed.
The second interesting point was the statement that the author mentioned “…authorization position-makes elections the key criterion of representative democracy; representation is “seen as a grant of authority by the voters to the elected officials”… The problem with the formalistic approach from this perspective is that “if representing means merely acting with special rights, or acting with someone else bearing the consequences, then there can be no such thing as continual accountability or immediate responsiveness, no account of how those elected actually govern, and no standards for assessing whether their policies work for or against the citizens who have elected them”. I found these quotations are very interesting because it is true that the idea of democracy is contradicted within itself. On one hand, the idea of having democratic government is to have the government elected by its people and is accountable for its people. On the other hand, it seems to be not practical because how can we measure accountability at the first place since every country has different set of value? Furthermore, can a country expect an ongoing accountability without having discontinuity or a break in the transaction period?
The article was clear from its start to its end about what the author was trying to argue. However, I find it difficult to make connection between the meaning of the article and course material. Since our course is dealing with diaspora object and the reading is talking about political integration, what is the connection between the two?
Unlike the first article, the second article “Khat and the creation of tradition in the Somali diaspora”, Alex Klein looked at the Somali community in the UK. He found that it was not true that the root of social and medical problems lie within the community. In other words, he argued that the problems is associated with khat use are not simply reducible to the pharmacological drug, but need to take into account a new cultural context of its use within the UK. Particularly, he wanted to show how the Somalis in the UK are divided in terms of khat status that might link them to unemployment, social exclusion, family breakdown and poor health.
Overall I found the article is short and well written with clear evidences supporting the author’s argument. I found the article is also interesting because I never heard anything about Somali diaspora before; thus, I learn a lot about the group after reading this article.
Museums
Both the Basu and Catalani articles speak to the ways in which the transnational movement of diasporic objects has been beneficial. In a counter argument against the common outlook that objects removed from their countries of origins should be returned (especially when acquired by colonial rule). These articles then, are set to address issues of rightful ownership and belonging. While the Catalani articles places greater emphasis on the affects of these objects on the diasporic communities, the Basu article takes greater focus on the cost-benefits of having objects abroad as apposed to “home”. While I don’t necessarily agree that you can assess the “value” of an objects placement, I did find the readings commendable for tackling the “other side of the coin”. Their stances ask us to excuse the past, and are very much asking to turn our eyes towards the present (or future).
By making cases for various collections of objects from Sierra Leone, it seems that Basu uses the historical routes of object diasporas to justify their present situations. We are presented with the driving forces that lead to these collections, and I found this to be a tool targeted at my compassion and own sense of discovery. However, I think that it more so highlighted the lack of foresight that was taken in acquiring these objects (more so on behalf of Aldridge), and for me, this really derailed the idea of these objects having an educational legacy. I guess this has much to do with intentionality, but it still left a bad taste in my mouth.
On the plus side, I did like the ways in which Basu asked us to rethink status, value and the potential of these collections. In this way, his approach can be seen as making the best out of what has come to pass. Especially with regards to highlighting the history of relations between Sierra Leone and their diasporic communities, I think a good case was made for how these objects are more than what they represent as objects. By keeping these relationships alive, we are able to think about the returned benefits (ie. the reactivation of money and interest by the reanimation of these collections).
Catalani argues for the benefits of diasporic objects as a means to restoring or forming cultural identities. He sees museums as institutions that provide a space for cultural awareness, and both history and memory. Collaborative efforts are cited as the ideal means to obtaining knowledge that is both socially and academically astute. While this appears to be an equitable approach, it really minimizes the dissonance that may exists between these outlooks, or between the academics and the “source communities” that Catalani call upon. This becomes a matter of associated knowledge’s; something I think is not flushed out enough in this article.
Questions:
http://www.googleartproject.com/
I have just recently heard about the google art project, which allows you into many international art galleries. It reminded me of these articles in that you do not need to leave your home to have access to these pieces. As technology and globalization allow for a greater degree of access, do you think issues surrounding object diasporas will be minimize? And perhaps will prevailing repatriation prove to be more beneficial in this climate?
And then in keeping with my first question…
Do you think that this is more so an issue of access or ownership?
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Object Diasporas: Museums Circulation and Identity Politics
Paul Basu’s article looked at the historical and current transnational flows of Sierra Leonean material culture and knowledge. In particularly, he focused on three collections: (1) the Alldridge collection held at British Museum and Brighton museum and Art Gallery (2) the Friedrich Ryff and Walter Volz collections at the Historieches Museum and Bern and (3) the Massie Taylor collection at Glasgow Museums. The purpose of the article is to explore the historical formation and distribution of this “object diaspora” and acknowledges its entanglement in the networks, flows, and power disparities of colonialism. In other words, the idea is to recognize the value of those collections in Sierra Leonean diasporic locations as a resource for contemporary community. According to Basu, there are two sets of images of Sierra Leone in which he refers to: (1) the most dominant view, the images of child solders, corrupt politicians, limbless victims of war and (2) This second view can be found in the ethnographic galleries of public museums throughout Europe and North America. For instance, the image of tribes and fetishes signify cultural symbols. However, opponents to this view argued that such collections are seen as “colonial loots” rather than cultural uniqueness. Basu discussed about the language of diaspora that is beyond the point of exile and return. He argued that the central of diaspora is that it is a web of social, spatial and temporal relationships with which diasporic populations can connect and disconnect, remember and forget. In this regard, the language of diaspora is associated with the objects and its relations to human experience of displacements. He also reminded us that most often, the African diaspora took place because of violence or forced movements. Therefore, the relationship between people, places and cultural histories can be connected with the sense of difficulty and pain. However, Basu emphasized that diaspora is not just about painful or loss past. Rather, it is about the future possibility. In a large part of his article, Basu discussed about the three mentioned collections. He told stories about each one of them in historical and ethnographical views. For instance, he said “during the 34 years that Alltridge traded and served in Sierra Leone, he assembled a lager personal collection, much of which was sold to Brighton Museum and the British Museum in various lots between 1899 and 1904” (pp.8) or “The diaspora of Sierra Leonean objecs that may be found in Bern and elsewhere in Switzerland is thus the legacy of quite different colonial contexts than those embodied in the Aldridge collection.” (pp.13) or “a significant part of the Massie-Taylor collection was, for many years, loaned to Newcastle University, where the museum ethnographer, Heiner Meinhard, used to teach anthropology class.”
Basu’s work is very interesting in terms of historical sources. I like the way how he puts different definition to clear his views. For instance, he discussed about the concept “migrant materialities” in which it refers to material culture that flourishes in exile within the recontextualizing territories of global museumscape, while their original homelands remain impoverished of a potentially vital cultural resource. Another concept was “remittance corridors” referring to the channels through which economic capital can be encouraged to flow (pp.3). One thing that I also found very interesting was Basu’s discussion of the issue of remittances and the contemporary role of Sierra Leone’s object diaspora. He found that dispersed collections create relationships between communities and generate networks of exchange that entail obligations and responsibilities. Despite strengths, I found that Basu’s article heavily discussed about historical matters. Perhaps, he should tell the readers more about the cultural and material objects in terms of human experience of pain or conflicts. Furthermore, the last part of his essay seems to be very interesting but he has talk very brief about it. Perhaps, he should elaborate more on his points.
Question: Very often, when we go to the museum, we see objects representing country’s history and at the same time, telling stories of those objects alone. This is a way of how we remembering the past. But do you think that your personal objects would have the same value as those staying in the museum? For instance, with the same design of a national dress or some kind of traditional musical instrument; one is yours and the other belongs to the museum. Are they having the same value or they are different because of the ownership is different?
In her article “Telling ‘another’ story: western museums and the creation of non-western identities”’ Catalani suggested that museums become remarkable sources for local communities to strengthen their sense of belonging to places, shared histories and identities. In particularly, she argued that the role of museum is to capture and reflect group identity through collective memories and the objects associated with those memories. In other words, the Western museum is a place where both memory and history contribute to the process of remembering and identity formation through objects. At the beginning of her article, she discussed about the differences of the two concepts “history” and “memory” which she found “history” is constructed by historians and written as evidence of chronological description whereas “memory” is based on oral accounts or sources and presents a more personal and direct connection between the individual, events and objects. However, the main difference between the two is that history is written under academic sources whereas memory is often accounted by personal experience or events. I found that such distinctions are very interesting because sometimes I personally mixed up with the two concepts.
Somewhere in her article, Catalani saw the similarities that “history” and “memory” hold were that both of them were socially constructed and the purpose was to gain people awareness. On page 3, Catalani discussed about how ‘history’ and ‘memory’ might appear in opposition, in which she found “memory us life, borne by living societies’, while history is constructed of what is past. I understand her point; however, I have to disagree with this because to me, memory is what makes history. Isn’t that history is constructed by historians and written about facts. But how do we know what facts are accountable and accurate? Facts derived from what people remember of it. In other words, history exists in the form narrative or story telling. For instance, same event, but different history occurs because history is written and judged in the eyes of the holders. How do we explain in that case?
Both of the article raised good points about how museum has been useful in shaping and preserving ethnic identities. However, as a reader, I would like to see more supporting evidences to both of their reasons.
Basu’s work is very interesting in terms of historical sources. I like the way how he puts different definition to clear his views. For instance, he discussed about the concept “migrant materialities” in which it refers to material culture that flourishes in exile within the recontextualizing territories of global museumscape, while their original homelands remain impoverished of a potentially vital cultural resource. Another concept was “remittance corridors” referring to the channels through which economic capital can be encouraged to flow (pp.3). One thing that I also found very interesting was Basu’s discussion of the issue of remittances and the contemporary role of Sierra Leone’s object diaspora. He found that dispersed collections create relationships between communities and generate networks of exchange that entail obligations and responsibilities. Despite strengths, I found that Basu’s article heavily discussed about historical matters. Perhaps, he should tell the readers more about the cultural and material objects in terms of human experience of pain or conflicts. Furthermore, the last part of his essay seems to be very interesting but he has talk very brief about it. Perhaps, he should elaborate more on his points.
Question: Very often, when we go to the museum, we see objects representing country’s history and at the same time, telling stories of those objects alone. This is a way of how we remembering the past. But do you think that your personal objects would have the same value as those staying in the museum? For instance, with the same design of a national dress or some kind of traditional musical instrument; one is yours and the other belongs to the museum. Are they having the same value or they are different because of the ownership is different?
In her article “Telling ‘another’ story: western museums and the creation of non-western identities”’ Catalani suggested that museums become remarkable sources for local communities to strengthen their sense of belonging to places, shared histories and identities. In particularly, she argued that the role of museum is to capture and reflect group identity through collective memories and the objects associated with those memories. In other words, the Western museum is a place where both memory and history contribute to the process of remembering and identity formation through objects. At the beginning of her article, she discussed about the differences of the two concepts “history” and “memory” which she found “history” is constructed by historians and written as evidence of chronological description whereas “memory” is based on oral accounts or sources and presents a more personal and direct connection between the individual, events and objects. However, the main difference between the two is that history is written under academic sources whereas memory is often accounted by personal experience or events. I found that such distinctions are very interesting because sometimes I personally mixed up with the two concepts.
Somewhere in her article, Catalani saw the similarities that “history” and “memory” hold were that both of them were socially constructed and the purpose was to gain people awareness. On page 3, Catalani discussed about how ‘history’ and ‘memory’ might appear in opposition, in which she found “memory us life, borne by living societies’, while history is constructed of what is past. I understand her point; however, I have to disagree with this because to me, memory is what makes history. Isn’t that history is constructed by historians and written about facts. But how do we know what facts are accountable and accurate? Facts derived from what people remember of it. In other words, history exists in the form narrative or story telling. For instance, same event, but different history occurs because history is written and judged in the eyes of the holders. How do we explain in that case?
Both of the article raised good points about how museum has been useful in shaping and preserving ethnic identities. However, as a reader, I would like to see more supporting evidences to both of their reasons.
Museums and object repatriation
Catalani and Basu argue against the popular critique which demands that Western museums return their ‘colonial loot.’ Both articles employ the concept of object diasporas to trouble popular notions of stolen or seized objects that ought to be returned to their ‘rightful’ homes. Catalani and Basu’s task is certainly difficult because the arguments for repatriation hold a lot of weight in popular circles, and I certainly read both articles with these counter-arguments in mind.
Catalani’s basic point is that simply calling for artefacts to be returned overlooks the role and function non-Western objects can play within Western institutions. By incorporating the input, knowledge, and values of originating and source communities Catalani argues that Western cultural institutions are producing dialogue around the history and memory of these cultural objects. One problem with this argument is evident in regards to the AGO Maharaja exhibition where certain objects that come from a specific class are taken to represent South Asian identity. It is always a particular representation of cultural identity that museums can offer and including source communities as was the case in the AGO exhibit doesn’t always address this issue. Catalani refers to source communities as though they hold valid, and ‘true’ historical information or facts about cultural artefacts. But more likely museums probably engage with a certain segment of source communities, and artefacts hold multiple meanings, just as diasporic communities are segmented rather than uniform and homogenous.
Basu tables the notion that Sierra Leonean objects might play a more valuable role in post-conflict rehabilitation from their diasporic locations that if they were repatriated. But the utility of cultural artefacts for diasporic populations misses the point of the post-colonial critique, and Basu doesn’t really present arguments for how diasporic communities specifically engage with these objects in museums, and how this directly affects post-conflict Sierra Leone. I understand the point that diasporic populations are involved in and participate in homeland conflicts, and the importance of remittance pathways to social structures and economies. But how does Basu presume having Sierra Leonean objects in UK museums affects this process? I would be more convinced of the argument Basu is attempting to make if the article included interviews or some kind of evidence about how the diasporic community engages with the artefacts.
For example when we talked about qat, the guest speaker presented the idea that chewing qat engages Somali youth with their community and identity. Do the collections Basu is referring to have any kind of similar effect? If anything I read Basu’s claims as rationale for having these collections housed in Sierra Leonean cultural or community centres in the UK.
Questions:
Did the readings offer convincing arguments against repatriation?
Basu compares repatriation arguments to diasporic return movements, did you find this comparison appropriate/convincing?
Catalani’s basic point is that simply calling for artefacts to be returned overlooks the role and function non-Western objects can play within Western institutions. By incorporating the input, knowledge, and values of originating and source communities Catalani argues that Western cultural institutions are producing dialogue around the history and memory of these cultural objects. One problem with this argument is evident in regards to the AGO Maharaja exhibition where certain objects that come from a specific class are taken to represent South Asian identity. It is always a particular representation of cultural identity that museums can offer and including source communities as was the case in the AGO exhibit doesn’t always address this issue. Catalani refers to source communities as though they hold valid, and ‘true’ historical information or facts about cultural artefacts. But more likely museums probably engage with a certain segment of source communities, and artefacts hold multiple meanings, just as diasporic communities are segmented rather than uniform and homogenous.
Basu tables the notion that Sierra Leonean objects might play a more valuable role in post-conflict rehabilitation from their diasporic locations that if they were repatriated. But the utility of cultural artefacts for diasporic populations misses the point of the post-colonial critique, and Basu doesn’t really present arguments for how diasporic communities specifically engage with these objects in museums, and how this directly affects post-conflict Sierra Leone. I understand the point that diasporic populations are involved in and participate in homeland conflicts, and the importance of remittance pathways to social structures and economies. But how does Basu presume having Sierra Leonean objects in UK museums affects this process? I would be more convinced of the argument Basu is attempting to make if the article included interviews or some kind of evidence about how the diasporic community engages with the artefacts.
For example when we talked about qat, the guest speaker presented the idea that chewing qat engages Somali youth with their community and identity. Do the collections Basu is referring to have any kind of similar effect? If anything I read Basu’s claims as rationale for having these collections housed in Sierra Leonean cultural or community centres in the UK.
Questions:
Did the readings offer convincing arguments against repatriation?
Basu compares repatriation arguments to diasporic return movements, did you find this comparison appropriate/convincing?
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?
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?
Monday, March 7, 2011
Museums as sites of power.
This week we return to the presentation of objects which are viewed within a specific frame. This is to say, to me, museums are similar to the picture frame we have previously discussed as determining the “gaze” of individuals and communities. Museums portray objects to convey a particular mode of seeing the objects, and this is executed within a specific (albeit fluid) structure of power dichotomies.
Catalani, in “Telling ‘Another’ Story: Western Museums and the Creation of Non-Western Identities,” bases her argument upon a foundation of “Western” (which means what, exactly, please?) museums, “non-Western” collections and the formation of local identity. She argues that “Western” museums are places where the (re)construction of history, the politics of memory and the links of these to (collective?) identity construction are processed in a “public and accessible way” (1). A considerable short-coming in Catalani’s article is the failure to explicate terms. While she indiscriminately throws around the terms “Western,” “non-Western,” “African,” “host society,” “hosted group” at no point does she detail what, exactly, these terms mean in her analysis. While some may argue that a general consensus exists, particularly for the former, on what these mean, I find inclusion in an academic article without explication, without any mention of hesitancy, or quotation marks, to be an egregious omission. The effect undermines the analysis on the construction of identity and the supposed flow of elements informing this construction. It places her piece within a clear us/them dichotomy, which is both simplistic and detrimental to attempts at understanding the complexity of identity within an historico-political environment where object biography and the presentation of this greatly contribute to engagement with the past and the corresponding effects in the present.
Elaine Heumann Gurian in her “What is the Object of this Exercise? A Meandering Exploration of the Many Meanings of Objects in Museums” argus that there is a profound link between “spirit” and museums (and such places of cultural/historic memory). I particularly liked her assertion that it is not objects per se which are the “essence” of museums, but rather the museums itself as a place which “presents and organizes” meaning (165). Indeed, I find her examples of the bowl and the role of labeling this as attached to the Holocaust and its presence in Auschwitz (171) as illustrative of this role of a ‘frame of viewing’ as it were, to encode meaning onto objects.
A second aspect of interest is the question: “who selects the objects and by what criteria” (172). I think that this question is, or should be, central in our experience and analysis of the AGO’s exhibit. Power structures, both ‘inter- and intra-community,’ in determining the presentation of self and community identity to O/others. Indeed, I find this is were the two articles overlap quite interestingly. Catalani identifies the dynamics between presentation of a specific culture within a context of a hegemonic culture and the links to identity construction. Yet she fails to identify the power structure within which this takes place, e.g. identifying the “Western” hegemony through funding and directing museums and the framing of objects and history within these (in “Western” locales). Furthermore, the same power structure dichotomy may be placed upon the notion of museums as “public and accessible” - for whom? As such, I thus find Gurian’s piece to more conscious of dynamics inherent in constructions of identity, yet this is still insufficiently articulated.
Questions:
1) To what extent and why do you dis/agree with the assessment of power dichotomies as an integral part in negotiations of identity construction and presentation within museums?
2) Although I do not directly touch upon this, in which ways do you think the engagement with indigenous communities and museums is informed by historical, poltico-economic power structures? And if this is a different answer than in 1), why?
Museums: Not so old and dusty anymore
The Basu piece delves into the problematic issues, which arise with European museums as they hold much of the objects representative of the heritage and culture of people overtaken by colonial powers. As Basu focuses on Sierra Leon as the point of origin for much of these artefacts, one can see where the idea of ‘stolen goods’ can somehow be dubbed as an object diaspora. This ‘dispersed’ collection of culture and history are (as Basu puts it) re-contextualized within these new places, taken away from their homeland, they begin to take on a different meaning to those who view them, who are not necessarily a part of that culture and do not share any of its heritage. The Catalani piece does have some notions of this as well. As both depict this image of colonial takeovers at the centre of where much of these objects come from, they are still in favour of the argument that there is much good to be had. Catalani, in describing the importance of this history vs. memory dialogue, conjures up the idea that perhaps in the study of these histories, the memories from which they come from (through the objects involved in those memories) could somehow come to be a part of the story told of the people the objects belong to. Similarly, Basu argues that much of the history of Sierra Leon is of hostility and war torn backwards people, left behind in the dust of the colonial conquests of the past… But museums may change this; they can show a rich, vibrant cultural smorgasbord for Europeans to feast on. Perhaps the mere fact that much of these objects are so close (being in the museum and not a plane trip away) Sierra Leon might not seem so far afterall. They arouse a sense of responsibility then on the part of the ‘post colonial’ patrons of these exhibits. In doing so, compassion and understanding of these diasporic communities begin to intertwine in the intellectual (and informal – as Catalani writes) discussion of the culture, hopefully breaking down the ‘THEM and US’ routine and moving towards a ‘WE’
There is much to be said about the idea of a museum in of itself… but when I read these texts, my idea on what they represent has shifted so much so that perhaps they could be a gateway into people whose objects they hold. Catalani speaks of the separation of history and memory as a written versus oral account of the past, and I agree with this only in so far as history can be written, while memories are not often carried on this way. But, I do think that perhaps history, can and has been carried on orally. Take First Nations people, (which I admit I know little about) have a rich (VERY RICH) history, which is passed on through story and hardly ever written down. Which dovetails into my questions:
1: When looking at a representation of something in a museum, take something as specific as a hunting spear from a tribe in South Africa, with what we know (or think we know) about the dramatic change colonialism has affected on the native population, do you wonder if colonialists had not taken this artefact, would we know anything about it today?
2: Part 2 of the first… does it even matter in the grand scheme of things? Or is so far past what South Africa looks like today (mostly commercialized and void of much of the ‘typical’ African (isms)) that it no longer represents its ‘native’ population. (white or black)
Museums as identity of diasporic lives
This week the readings by Paul Basu and Anna Catalani dealt with the role of museums in representing and adding value to diasporic communities. Basu would argue that museums could help in removing the negative images of civil war and violence associated with Sierra Leone. When galleries display cultural practices, religion rituals, and other components of Sierra Leone, audiences can associate Sierra Leone with positive characteristics rather than violence. These positive associations can be crucial to Sierra Leone diasporas, as they can be catalyst to integration or acceptance to a foreign society.
Both Catalani and Basu acknowledge how museums are colonial endeavors the collection of objects as trophies of the land they have acquired, museums in a way are stolen objects (the same way colonial powers stole slaves). However negative museums might seem, Basu would argue non-western museums are extremely valuable. They can be more influential out of their home context: they aid in creating network of exchange which demand responsibility of both parties (host/ new comers) “we might begin to see the value, for originating communities, of maintaining objects in diasporic contexts rather than insisting on their return” (Basu 2011: 19).
I appreciated Catalani discussion on history vs. memory; as she explain how different they are but at the same time how inseparable. History is a description/write up of a story that can be from an outsider long after the fact. Memory is personal and passed on orally. Catalani argues that history encourages memory not to be forgotten. I believe that some history is hard to belief without proof and originality “Therefore, in order to keep some traces of ‘original’ memory, society collects it through organized images, speeches, and any visible signs, including in our case, museum exhibitions.” (Catalani 2010: 4)
What I find problematic in general with museums and Catalani mentions it, the importance of the curator. Galleries might try to represent Sierra Leone in a positive light but seclusion/ left behind can cause a diaspora to fell more of an outcast. What gets included is highly dependant on the curator in charge of the museum.
Questions
1. How does “remittances corridors” apply to object diasporas? What are they?
2. At the end of Bau’s article he says, “By reanimating Sierra Leone’s object diaspora, the aspiration is that this diaspora will contribute to the reanimation of Sierra Leone itself.” (Basu 2011: 21) Can he mean the reanimation of Sierra Leone through money from abroad/remittances? Or positive images? Or Both?
Museums and collaboration
Heumann Gurian writes about museums as a place of memory that is central to the spirit of a society, and not necessarily dependant on objects. She does this by examining the contested space of objects and museums, and their various and often changing source of definitions and museums’ ability to become accredited via the American Association of Museums. She poses questions of authenticity of chosen objects when the objects are displayed out of cultural context to the viewers, ownership especially in relation to indigenous communities who work collaboratively with museums to care for and use the objects, as well as the question of reconstructing memory in the absence of material evidence.
In the beginning of her paper, Heumann Gurian states that the definition of museum is blurring to include other kinds of public spaces and she sees this as a positive thing. I’m not sure that she’s articulated why exactly this is a positive thing through her paper and I’m left wondering what she meant by this statement. I do feel though that raising the issue of museum appropriation of indigenous cultural material is an important call to make. Heumann Gurian states that indigenous communities such as those working through the Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act work together with museums to care for and use material, and while this seemingly is a positive step that perhaps she’d hope other institutions to work towards as well, I have to wonder about the evenness of grounds on which this kind of partnership works. In the Canadian context, I’m aware that the federal and provincial governments have long claimed to be ‘working with’ indigenous communities over matters that concern them, such as land preservation, cultural and language preservation, and self-government, however, the governments tend to define ‘working with’ and ‘in consultation’ in a way that makes indigenous extinguish their title to their land in exchange for a say in how their future gets handled. I’m thus suspicious of watery phrases such as the ones Heumann Gurian has presented in this paper to explain the relationship indigenous communities have with the objects in museums, and I’d prefer to have a better illustration of these partnerships before feeling as positive as the author is about it.
Catalani presents a short examination of the difference between history and memory to set up her argument that museums are a site of public accessible memory that necessitates the collaboration of local communities in the creation of collections (an arguement not unlike Heumann Gurian has made about partnership). She asserts that for communities, their access to their heritage in museums is crucial to their 'reclamation' of identity for instance not as 'Africans in Europe' but as Europeans with an African background. This can be done through a program like the one in Manchester at the Manchester Museum which has documented a series of conversations between individuals of local “source” communities and museum professionals. She sees museums as shifting in meaning from a monolithic institution towards a "more socially-oreinted custodian of a shared cultural heritage" (6), while artifacts from communities constitute a part of their identity formation and recreation, and community members are needed in the process of interpretation and identification of objects.
I am interested particularly in this passage; “Through 'identity', people define themselves as belonging to a specific group and, at the same time, they redefine and reshape the way that they want to be perceived by other groups” (8). Yet, I think I am interested for different reasons than the ones that made Catalani include it in the essay. It makes me ask, what about the society that the museum is of. How does the museum and the society use the collections to shape an identity of itself? For instance, I never get to hear the story of how all these artifacts were stolen in the first place. What does the absence of negative memory mean for the self-image of the society that has constructed the museum? I feel that Catalani really messed up here, in neglecting to explore this further even as she tries to hint at her understanding of this by mentioning in passing that the curator’s voice is still predominant despite ‘source’ community consultation. She has presented an argument that museums are collaborative spaces of identity formation without addressing the rebuttals (like mine) to prove her point.
I had a few other thoughts on particular passages of both articles, namely Catalani’s passage - "For centuries, non-Western objects have been displayed as curiosities; they have been studied as typological specimens that could shed light on the progress of human thought," (4); and Heumann Gurian’s assertion that, "In fact, part and parcel of conquest and subjugation was the access to interesting bits of the subjugated. This assumption that everything was fair game held currency for a long time," (179). Because I feel these relate back to previous points I’ve raised in earlier weeks about the positioning of non-European examples of trade and value in the articles we’ve studied and also about the political nature of souvenirs and conquest.
I had a few other thoughts on particular passages of both articles, namely Catalani’s passage - "For centuries, non-Western objects have been displayed as curiosities; they have been studied as typological specimens that could shed light on the progress of human thought," (4); and Heumann Gurian’s assertion that, "In fact, part and parcel of conquest and subjugation was the access to interesting bits of the subjugated. This assumption that everything was fair game held currency for a long time," (179). Because I feel these relate back to previous points I’ve raised in earlier weeks about the positioning of non-European examples of trade and value in the articles we’ve studied and also about the political nature of souvenirs and conquest.
Questions for this week:
1) Heumann Gurian’s points about authenticity and viewer cultural positioning, and Catalani’s brief statement about the curator’s voice question the validity of museums as sources of education. How does this translate to the validity of anthropologic academic texts (also collections of proof and material) as sources of education?
2) How else can the blurring of definitions of what constitutes a museum be a positive thing, as per Heumann Gurian’s article?
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
khat-alysts for democratic exchange
This week’s readings raised some interesting points on the nature of tradition, and the role that objects and rituals can play in political deliberation. Klein demonstrates that the practice of chewing khat has been erroneously portrayed as a long-standing aspect of Somali tradition, whereas it in fact it has gained popularity only in recent decades. He problematizes the discourse surrounding its detrimental effects in diasporic Somali communities in the UK and pursues a contextualized cultural analysis of such by bringing into question the colonial and gendered facets of the debate.
Wedeen’s chapter was particularly enjoyable by the way in which it challenged liberal notions of democracy and political participation. She recognizes the distinction between democratic practices and liberal values. I read Schumpeter extensively in 2nd year poli-sci and hated every word of it without having a coherent analysis of what was so distasteful about him, so I kind of wish I had read this text a year ago. The troubling of the binarism between authoritarian and democratic regimes, as well as the challenge of the conflation of liberalism and democracy were things I appreciated about Wedeen’s analysis.
The grounding of these two spheres of analysis in the material example of khat provided a useful concretization of the concepts. I found that Wedeen was much more satisfactory in respect to using a real situation to generate rigorous theoretical analysis though, whereas Klein raised useful and interesting questions that were not further pursued.
I would have particularly liked to have seen a closer examination of the gendered aspects of the debate on khat. By this I mean to point towards the manner in which the discussion about gender is framed both by Somali women and the UK parliament. The paper acknowledges Somali men’s barriers to entry in the labor market as migrants and the gender anxiety it can induce with regards to their failure to conform to the concepts of the patriarchal household and masculinity as norms. It would be interesting to explore how the British state simultaneously causes and punishes the anxiety, by creating structural barriers to labor participation and then condemning its consequences – the creation of lazy men who ‘chew all night long’ and beat their wife (and singling the latter out as a racist insinuation that they are culturally inferior or more misogynist than men in western society).
It would also be interesting to think about the way in which the Somali men are emasculated by both their wives and the state and thinking about the ways in which these processes might either provide space for resistance to or perpetuation of patriarchy, and what the role of the masculinity of the practice of khat chewing may play in the diaspora. Wedeen does pay particular attention to the gendered dynamic of the khat chew in itself and explores it with more depth, acknowledging how khat chews are segregated by gender and how this excludes women from political participation. She does not however sufficiently incorporate this analysis into his broader understanding of khat chews as sites of democratic deliberation. I find this unfortunate but not incompatible with his general exploration of democratic potential in khat chews as he explained that his aim is not to romanticize khat but to deromanticize the ballot box, which forgives her from exploring with too much depth the obvious democratic deficits in the practise of the khat chew.
With regards to the use of khat in the diaspora and the ways in which it plays a role in cultural segregation, it would be interesting to explore more how this is acknowledged and taken advantage of by the State and the role it can play in the criminalization of migrants. Anna Pratt writes a chapter in her book ‘Securing Borders’ on the ways in which the illegalization of khat was used to criminalize and harass Somali communities in Toronto, and we see a hint of that behavior in Klein’s example of the quote by the British MP. I think this conversation is intrinsically linked to that of the reasons for selectivity when it comes to the policing of certain substances. Cocaine and whiteness was brought up in some of the other blog posts. I think that colonialism and racism play roles here, for example I would venture to attribute the criminalization of marijuana to its non-western origin, foreignness and attempt to criminalize communities of color. Indeed it was first outlawed in colonized South Africa and Jamaica.
I wonder also to what extent the incredible price differences and legal status of khat between the UK and North America affect its role in shaping diasporic communities, as it seems clear that it still has a significant presence in Canada. Forcing the practice underground would play a role in further segregating these communities from the dominant majority as is the concern posed by its use in the UK. I haven't seen evidence yet though of whether expensive North American khat would segregate diasporic communities by class and disposable income, which would be another method of straining community ties.
Wedeen’s chapter was particularly enjoyable by the way in which it challenged liberal notions of democracy and political participation. She recognizes the distinction between democratic practices and liberal values. I read Schumpeter extensively in 2nd year poli-sci and hated every word of it without having a coherent analysis of what was so distasteful about him, so I kind of wish I had read this text a year ago. The troubling of the binarism between authoritarian and democratic regimes, as well as the challenge of the conflation of liberalism and democracy were things I appreciated about Wedeen’s analysis.
The grounding of these two spheres of analysis in the material example of khat provided a useful concretization of the concepts. I found that Wedeen was much more satisfactory in respect to using a real situation to generate rigorous theoretical analysis though, whereas Klein raised useful and interesting questions that were not further pursued.
I would have particularly liked to have seen a closer examination of the gendered aspects of the debate on khat. By this I mean to point towards the manner in which the discussion about gender is framed both by Somali women and the UK parliament. The paper acknowledges Somali men’s barriers to entry in the labor market as migrants and the gender anxiety it can induce with regards to their failure to conform to the concepts of the patriarchal household and masculinity as norms. It would be interesting to explore how the British state simultaneously causes and punishes the anxiety, by creating structural barriers to labor participation and then condemning its consequences – the creation of lazy men who ‘chew all night long’ and beat their wife (and singling the latter out as a racist insinuation that they are culturally inferior or more misogynist than men in western society).
It would also be interesting to think about the way in which the Somali men are emasculated by both their wives and the state and thinking about the ways in which these processes might either provide space for resistance to or perpetuation of patriarchy, and what the role of the masculinity of the practice of khat chewing may play in the diaspora. Wedeen does pay particular attention to the gendered dynamic of the khat chew in itself and explores it with more depth, acknowledging how khat chews are segregated by gender and how this excludes women from political participation. She does not however sufficiently incorporate this analysis into his broader understanding of khat chews as sites of democratic deliberation. I find this unfortunate but not incompatible with his general exploration of democratic potential in khat chews as he explained that his aim is not to romanticize khat but to deromanticize the ballot box, which forgives her from exploring with too much depth the obvious democratic deficits in the practise of the khat chew.
With regards to the use of khat in the diaspora and the ways in which it plays a role in cultural segregation, it would be interesting to explore more how this is acknowledged and taken advantage of by the State and the role it can play in the criminalization of migrants. Anna Pratt writes a chapter in her book ‘Securing Borders’ on the ways in which the illegalization of khat was used to criminalize and harass Somali communities in Toronto, and we see a hint of that behavior in Klein’s example of the quote by the British MP. I think this conversation is intrinsically linked to that of the reasons for selectivity when it comes to the policing of certain substances. Cocaine and whiteness was brought up in some of the other blog posts. I think that colonialism and racism play roles here, for example I would venture to attribute the criminalization of marijuana to its non-western origin, foreignness and attempt to criminalize communities of color. Indeed it was first outlawed in colonized South Africa and Jamaica.
I wonder also to what extent the incredible price differences and legal status of khat between the UK and North America affect its role in shaping diasporic communities, as it seems clear that it still has a significant presence in Canada. Forcing the practice underground would play a role in further segregating these communities from the dominant majority as is the concern posed by its use in the UK. I haven't seen evidence yet though of whether expensive North American khat would segregate diasporic communities by class and disposable income, which would be another method of straining community ties.
Khat/Miraa
With a focus on debunking the myth that khat has some historical significance within Somalia, Klein takes to addressing the mixed view on khat use with the UK by diasporic Somali communities. While he addresses the 1970s as the year khat use became popularized in Somalia, this relative newness doesn’t seem to translate in Europe. Instead, khat is seen as a tradition to which the culture is strongly attached, and thus a central part of ones identity, and that of their nation. Nevertheless, there appears to be disparities amongst Somali’s with regards to whether the substance should be banned or not in the UK. Part of this is based on a gender divide, where the Somali women have come and established themselves, and the newly arrived men are finding employment hard to come by and in turn spend time and money on khat. In this way, the social structuring in the UK can be seen as ill equipped for khat use in comparison to Somalia. The colonial distortion of this substance can be dated back to before diasporic communities had been established in the UK, and Klein addresses a number of instances of these.
The Carrier article in contrast focused less on the ways in which khat has affected its users, and more so on the values which khat adopts depending on situation, consumer, country, and a whole bunch of other reasons. Calling it a heterogeneous substance, Carrier breaks down the various ways in which (miraa) can acquire value. I found that this article provided an extremely thorough examination of miraa, and gave me a sense of why it has become such a controversial substance. By breaking down the value systems, and drawing out how they were associated with different parties, I was able to get a better sense of the complexity behind it. Miraa (as opposed to the khat addressed in Kleins article), appears to be a thing of beauty, and something to be approached at, almost as if an art form (its in manner of cultivation, distribution, and consumption).
The Carrier article, in its keen eye for details, provided a real sense of the culture of miraa. While it was linked to its use in Kenya, by highlighting the various alterations and adaptions that exist, I finished the article with a sense of how miraa has garnered interest universally. Differentially it presented the range in knowledge that surrounds the substance, from those who are connoisseurs to users who will chew anything considered "fresh" (despite being barehe)
My question then would be if anyone else experienced this contrast in the Klein and Carrier article. Which I guess is really to ask, whether you found the Carrier article to illuminate the potential beauty and attractiveness of miraa?
While Klein argues that a lack of history within the Somali culture should be reason to stop its use within the diaspora, do you think that this is so? In my reading of the article, I found that khat use maintains a culture of itself, and that ones background should not affect whether or not they should be users? Perhaps a greater knowledge base would account for better use amongst the diaspora and other communities who have been removed from its origins.
About Khat..
These 4 articles have addressed the topic of Khat in Somalians’ and Yemens’ communities.
In “pop articles on qat”, it discusses the heated debate about Khat socially what the pros and cons in partaking Khat are. There is FDA, a.k.a “U.S. Food and Drug Administration” advisory on Khat which explains how the drug is to be used. This has offered some good statistics in seeing people’s habits in their consumption with Khat in Rome. It is regarded as illegal only when DEA, a.k.a. “Drug Enforcement Administration” says so, therefore people define Khat for themselves which therefore can result in misusing it. This explains for the article of having a Health Guide for Khat Users that gives hints which might be of help to minimize the risks with 11 points. I personally find this funny because it is like showing a comparison how to crack cocaine in appropriate dosage. This cloudiness in the use of Khat (For example: it is legal to chew but illegal to import Khat in Canada) has also led to two (Somali) Canadians smuggling Khat through Detroit Airport.
In comparison to “Bundles of Choice: Variety and the Creation and Manipulation of Kenyan Khat’s Value”, “pop articles on qat” is a stack of newspaper clippings that briefly describes the controversial issue of Khat and how the government in the US has given guidelines to how people should use it while, the previous article “Bundles” is a more detailed, thorough discussion of what Kenyan Khat (Miraa) is, the literature on value and its relevance to miraa, describes variable used in distinguishing the many different types of miraa., describes how consumers associate themselves with certain varieties and suggests why some varieties are more valued- culturally and economically- than others. The subtitles are clear and useful to help reader follow through the whole piece of argument in first understanding what Miraa is and different kinds of Miraa there are, then the values of Miraa and how it is linked to the idea of migration of how Somalians understand Miraa. It was interesting to find a constant and fluid change between the subject of “I” and plain general statement as one can’t usually find this mixture of narrative styles in a research paper.
Another similar way of writing about Khat is “Khat and the creation of tradition in the Somali diaspora”, this article discusses how Khat is a controversial topic because it is a tradition in the Somali diaspora. Instead of simply seeing the cons that Khat can bring in health- wise, Axel Klein has helped us to Khat from a cultural perspective in understanding why there the Somalis take Khat. One reason suggested was because of how there is unemployment, marginalization, social exclusion, family breakdown and poor health within the Somali communities and these partly cause the possible misuse of Khat. The writer has helped to explain this through the use of the subtitles, “Tradition and History”, “Khat in global market”, “campaigning against Khat use”, “the social context of khat use by Somalis in the UK”, “the Somali Khat tradition”, “Khat and the invention of tradition”. The paper is finished with “Khat and the invention of tradition” which is echoing the first subtitle “Tradition and history” how different pattern of Khat use in the UK, it is the “false memory” or creation of tradition that holds the key to many of the associated problems. Somalis didn’t really question or identify Khat is part of their culture without fully understanding the historical origin of this unhealthy consumption pattern. That leads to some sort of guideline, how etiquette is for appropriate use, and restrictions against excess. (58,59) Despite this fact, Axel Klein concluded Somalis in the UK still regard khat chewing as part of their tradition and culture.
“Peripheral Visions- Publics, Power and Performance in Yemen”, this article is a comparatively a very dense to the previous 3 articles. It is the longest one and the hardest one to understand. It is talking about Khat in a more political and public relational context.
2 Questions for Thought:
(1) Do we have a judgement for what is a good diasporic object? Khat is cultural and social to the Somalis, as a tradition, but taking in Khat can be destructive to health.
(2) From what I’ve been learning so far, I never thought of studying object diaspora can possibly relate to a bigger picture of legalization of drugs. Is there any other implication of studying object diaspora besides this? Should we still celebrate the use of an object even if it is potentially not healthy, while still brings cultural groups of people together?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)