User:Tmlweigel/sandbox

Imperialism in Museums

Literature Review

Imperialism broadly denotes an expansion of a state’s power involving territorial, political, or economic control over other areas or peoples. Although there is controversy in defining the term, different theories that have emerged may illuminate its fundamental features. Contemporary understanding of imperialism primarily refers to the dominance exerted overseas by European empires in the 19^th and 20^th century (Kumar, 2011, p.2). Although legacies of many historically significant empires have shaped the development of modern imperialism (Kumar, 2011), it is also widely perceived as a distinct phenomenon due to its connection to capitalism (Duara, 2011).

Most generally, imperialism is associated with a power imbalance between two states (Howe, 2002). Doyle (1986) characterizes imperialism as a relationship between a dominating metropolitan centre and the peripheral territory it controls. Profound inequality between metropole and periphery is implicit in this definition, which has been employed by scholars such as Edward Said (1994). Furthermore, imperialism can exist without direct rule over foreign territories in the form of colonies, instead exercising control in political, economic, or social spheres (Kumar, pp.3-4). Notably, Said (Orientalism, 1978) outlines how imperialist relations can be generated through culture and knowledge. The production of knowledge in empires conceptualizes the colonized population as an inferior ‘other’, thus reinforcing a dichotomy of identities.

Introduction

Imperialist legacy remains present in museums around the world and is thus an important issue that shall be addressed. Art historians such as Alice Procter, who established the 'Uncomfortable Art Tours', aim to challenge how information is displayed in museums and highlight their imperialistic nature. As she has recently been criticised for her work that exposes the imperialistic nature of museums such as the British Museum, Tate Britain and the Victoria and Albert museum by the Daily Mail one can observe the pressing nature of this issue (1). As a result, we will observe the way in which museums are still used to create divisions in people's minds. This subconscious division, conceptualised by John Willinsky, is between different cultures, based on race, religion or gender (1998 p. 27). This claim is supported by Galtung's findings regarding the psychological effect of imperialism on human behaviour. His study suggests that imperialism creates a differing basic psyche between students from countries that benefit from imperialism, and students coming from negatively impacted countries. Students from countries which benefit are more inclined to be autonomous, whilst students from negatively impacted countries are more dependent (4). It is this division that maintains the strength of imperialist ideologies within a society, one group believing they are superior to another and so should dominate. We will argue that museums, through architecture, categorisation, displays and appropriation, are one tool used to help further enforce these psychological divisions in people's minds.

Case Studies

In order to prove the existing imperialist nature of museums we will assess three museums and the way in which their particular features create a division within people's minds, thus continuing a mentality of Western racial superiority and displaying Willinsky’s perspective.

The Great Exhibition

As a past example, The Great Exhibition, a Victorian international exhibition of culture and industry was used to display the technological, political, and intellectual project of Western imperialist powers and, in doing so 'insisted on the perfectibility of all peoples (under European guidance)' (Buchli, 2002 p.6). The culture that was chosen to be displayed to the world was one of progress and innovation, as opposed to any parts of British culture which might tarnish Britain's reputation. This shows how institutions were utilised to assert the superiority of the Western, European or even 'white' culture, over other cultures which imperialists desired control over. The superiority of Western culture that was displayed, is one way in which divisions were created in people's minds between the 'superior' intellect of West versus East, or civilised peoples versus savages.

Imperialism in the Australian War Memorial

The exclusion of the frontier wars in the Australian War Memorial supports Willinksy’s argument as it creates a psychological division of the inferiority of the Australian aborigines and the British colonialists. The memorial was opened in 1941 and aims to commemorate the country's soldiers that died during the wars that make up its history. The museum primarily focuses on Anzac history and conveniently excludes the frontier battles between the Australian aborigines and colonial police, soldiers and settlers which serve as a historical example of colonialist racial violence (2). Additionally, in 2018 the Australian government has spent over $600 million on a four year commemoration service known as Anzac 100 (3), which makes their failure to remember the aborigines even more severe. As it is estimated that approximately 20,000 indigenous Australians died between 1978 to 1928 as part of the frontier conflicts (2), one must question the reasons behind the museum's disinterest in the events. As argued by historian Michael MacKernan the museum's exclusion of the battles suggests that "the particular part of the story is too confronting or too uncomfortable" to be mentioned (2), therefore creating even greater controversy around the subject. This omission therefore illustrates the presence of imperialism in the museum as it aims to disregard the racist nature of the British colonialists. Moreover, the exclusion of the battles doesn't display the oppressive quality of the violent settlement of the British colonialists in Australia. It thus indirectly portrays the settlers as superior as they are almost exempted of their crimes through the fact that they are not being mentioned. This has the effect of validating their actions and thus creating a division between the colonists and the aborigines.

Imperialism in the British Museum

The British Museum was founded as a direct consequence of politics, as successful colonial expeditions provided ‘exotic’ objects to be displayed as indicative of the Empire’s power. As a product of Imperialism, and therefore incapable of being neutral, the exhibition space is intrinsically laden with imperialist implications. In recent years there has been an increase in requests for the repatriation of artefacts made by former colonies, which at the time were unable to withstand “the original removal of historical objects”. In contrast to other institutions, the BM has remained obstinate in its response to such requests, arguing the collection in its current constellation and location, permits maximum benefit for the most amount of people. In this way the BM maintains its position as an “appropriate custodian” to these objects, implying the source nations as incapable of housing their own artefacts and subsequently dependent on Britain. As the political relationship and power dynamics between these states to Western powers has changed however, the refusal to return such artefacts, arguably perpetuates feelings of suppression, serving as a constant reminder of their removal.

To this extent denying the repatriation reinforces the psychological divide in visitors as described by Willinsky as it prohibits interpretations by the source nations of their own artefacts, instead imposing an imperial, eurocentric lens on much of their cultural heritage. This is further showcased by the general movement of objects from former colonies to Britain, the “imperialist centre”, defining the former as peripheral and therefor inferior to the latter.

Conclusion

The issue of imperialism in museums naturally incorporates the disciplines of politics, art history and anthropology. In order to better understand the extent to which imperialism is still present in contemporary museums we used the psychological effects that it had on class divisions, thus supporting Willinsky’s point that it created divisions within people’s minds. The Great Exhibition serves as an example of imperialism in museums during the heights of imperialism. Similarly, we considered this in the contemporary world through the British Museum that displays the ever-existing imperialistic nature of museums in Britain. Moreover, the Australian Memorial depicts imperialism from the perspective of a colonised country, which widens our view of the issue. It is clear then that in both old and new museums, whether intentional or not, a dichotomy between Western and ‘other’ cultures is enforced.

References:

1. Procter A. Museums are hiding their imperial pasts- which is why my tours are needed. The Guardian. 23 Apr 2018 [cited: 29 Nov 2018]. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/23/museums-imperialist-pasts-uncomfortable-art-tours-slavery-colonialism
2. Daley P. Why does the Australian War Memorial ignore the frontier war?. The Guardian. 12 Sep 2013 [cited: 29 Nov 2018]. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/12/australian-war-memorial-ignores-frontier-war
3. Daley P. Australia's frontier war killings still conveniently escape official memory. The Guardian. 8 Jun 2018 [cited: 29 Nov 2018]. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/postcolonial-blog/2018/jun/08/australias-frontier-war-killings-still-conveniently-escape-official-memory
4. Eckhardt W. and Young C. Psychology of Imperialism. Peace Research. January 1975. Volume 7 42-44. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/23684973.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Af9c6847fa6719ed6918b521d079a806f&seq=1